In its third opportunity to review the district court’s decision in this trade secret case involving flooring, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again reversed, this time vacating a permanent injunction and an...more
9/15/2022
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Breach of Contract ,
Damages ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Misappropriation ,
Nominal Damages ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Prevailing Party ,
Remand ,
Trade Secrets ,
Vacated
In a second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, after the Court affirmed a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on “bad faith” non-disclosure of statutory bar prior sales on the...more
In June 2017, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that under 35 USC § 145, a court can award attorneys’ fees to the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), regardless of whether the applicant,...more
In Depth -
Under 17 USC § 505, a “court may … award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.” However, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, 17 USC...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has now agreed to review a 2015 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the proper measure of damages in cases of design patent infringement. Samsung...more
The U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) was...more
2/15/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Certiorari ,
Claim Construction ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
First Sale Doctrine ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
SCOTUS
Taking its first IP cases of the current session, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two § 284 enhanced fee award patent cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., S.Ct. No. 14-1513 (Oct. 19, 2015) and...more
11/5/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Certiorari ,
Damages ,
Enhanced Penalties ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Stryker Ortho ,
Treble Damages ,
Willful Infringement
With respect to the two related questions before the Supreme Court of the United States, the court held that (1) the prior standard used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for determining whether a case is...more
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. -
In the attorneys’ fee portion of this seminal case on inequitable conduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the defendants, while...more