The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
Recent investment in clean-energy technologies has been nothing short of extraordinary. Fueled in part by generous government incentives designed to accelerate the transition to a lower-carbon economy, clean-energy projects...more
In a considerable shift in the law, the Federal Circuit has discarded the long-standing test for determining whether a design patent is invalid as obvious, in favor of the more flexible obviousness test historically applied...more
A host of questions are arising about the intellectual property rights attached to energy transition projects because of enormous investments in the space and the cutting-edge technologies that follow.
Energy transition...more
In a unanimous opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court held that two functional genus patent claims were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 In doing so, it affirmed both the Federal Circuit’s previous decision...more
The machines aren’t coming for your job — they’re here to help. But when humans work with artificial intelligence (“AI”) assistance, who owns the final product?
If a person uses an AI tool to invent, is that person the...more
On April 6, 2021, the Western District of Texas ordered that preliminary injunction relief was appropriate to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s “discovery abuse and related misconduct.”...more
4/9/2021
/ Bad Faith ,
Counterclaims ,
Discovery ,
e-Discovery ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Fraudulent Concealment ,
Intentional Spoliation ,
Irreparable Harm ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Sanctions ,
Spoliation ,
Third-Party
On February 10, 2021, the Federal Circuit held that the term “computer” was indefinite because the prosecution history included arguments distinguishing prior art references that relied on conflicting understandings of the...more
On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit reissued a previously nonprecedential opinion as precedential that held that inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioners could not benefit from its earlier Arthrex holding to challenge adverse...more
On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims directed to software executed on a server are obvious in view of prior art that taught performing the same method on a local device. Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One,...more