17 USC 102(a) provides copyright protection for original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,...more
On July 31, 2020, in American Axle v. Neapco, the Federal Circuit split 6-6 on the question of whether to grant en banc review of a panel decision on patent eligibility seen by many as an unwarranted extension of the...more
2/5/2021
/ Appeals ,
En Banc Review ,
EU ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States ,
USPTO
On August 26, 2020, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down its unanimous combined decision in the cases of Unwired Planet v. Huawei and Huawei v. Conversant. Both cases involved questions of:
1. Whether the...more
1/18/2021
/ China ,
EU ,
FRAND ,
Germany ,
Huawei ,
Infringement ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP License ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Small Employer Plans (SEPs) ,
UK
The question of whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has any right to examine a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review or post...more
11/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that government entities could not be considered “persons” entitled to challenge patents owned by others before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more
9/23/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
America Invents Act ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Government Entities ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP License ,
Mail ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
SCOTUS ,
USPS
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, the United States Supreme Court held that a prior public sale of a patented product could destroy the novelty of a patent for that product even though there was no...more
1/30/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
On June 22, 2018 in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corporation, the Supreme Court held in a 7 – 2 decision written by Thomas J with Gorsuch and Breyer JJ dissenting that the loss of foreign profits resulting from the...more
6/28/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation
On June 12, 2017, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered the complex statutory scheme that attempts to expedite resolution of patent...more
8/21/2017
/ Amgen ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS
In 1628, Lord Coke in his “Institutes of the laws of England” summarized the common law on restraints on the alienation of chattels stating that any attempt by a seller to restrict resale or use of the chattel after selling...more
7/13/2017
/ Breach of Contract ,
Chattel ,
Exports ,
Foreign Sales ,
Imports ,
Impression Products v Lexmark International ,
IP License ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Resales Agreements ,
SCOTUS ,
Single-Use/No Resale Restriction ,
Stream of Commerce
In its decision of May 22, 2017 in Heartland v. Kraft, the United States Supreme Court held that the specific venue provisions applicable to Patent infringement (28 U.S.C. 1400 (b)) limited the courts in which a domestic...more
5/30/2017
/ Food Manufacturers ,
Forum Shopping ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Multidistrict Litigation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
In a 7-1 decision on March 21, 2017, in the case of SCA Hygiene Products AB v. First Quality Baby Products LLC, the United States Supreme Court reversed an en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and...more
3/28/2017
/ Damages ,
Defense Strategies ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Laches ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Petrella v. MGM ,
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v First Quality Baby Products ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations
On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands LLC affirmed a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that copyright protection could exist in surface...more
3/28/2017
/ Cheerleaders ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyrightable Subject Matter ,
Fashion Design ,
Graphic Designs ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Separability ,
Star Athletica v Varsity Brands ,
Uniforms
On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of...more
2/24/2017
/ Appeals ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
Exports ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Induced Infringement ,
Life Technologies Corp v Promega Corp ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Supply Contracts
The Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 ruled that when considering the basis for awarding damages based on the infringer’s profits from infringing a design patent, it is not necessary to base these damages on the profit made...more
12/7/2016
/ Apple v Samsung ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Cell Phones ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Manufacturers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Profits ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
The case of Kirstaeng v. Wiley hit the headlines in 2013 when the Supreme Court held that importation and sale in the United States of books bought from the copyright owner in Thailand was not an infringement of copyright,...more
On June 13, 2016 Chief Justice Roberts delivered a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Halo v. Pulse on the question of when enhanced damages can be awarded for patent infringement. This decision reversed...more
6/23/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Seagate ,
Standard of Review ,
Willful Infringement
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more
6/22/2016
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Final Judgment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
This year the IP world will be brimming with changes, the largest of which will take place in the European Union. Sweeping reforms in EU trademark law will be implemented in March as well as the likelihood of the Unitary...more
2/24/2016
/ Apple v Samsung ,
Brazil ,
Canada ,
China ,
Copyright ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Design Patent ,
Eli Lilly ,
EU ,
European Court of Justice (ECJ) ,
FRAND ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Japan ,
Lanham Act ,
Lexmark ,
Madrid Protocol ,
Patent Litigation ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Redskins ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trademark Litigation ,
UK ,
Unitary Patent ,
World Intellectual Property Organisation
Two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2014 may have an impact on the “patent trolls” debate by changing the rules relating to the award of attorney fees to a winning party in litigation relating to patent...more