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
The U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy writing for the majority) has now eliminated a defense that has been available to parties accused of actively inducing patent infringement under 35 USC § 271(b). The Court held that a...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review of issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises -
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in affirming a district court decision that toy maker Marvel was not required to make payments after the expiration of a patent,...more
Commil USA v. Cisco Systems -
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid may negate the element of intent required to prove induced...more
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC; Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Sec., S.A.; Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. -
In the span of 10 days, and in the wake of the U.S Supreme Court...more
On June 2, 2014, the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., a case that focused on the standard for compliance with the “definiteness” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2,...more
In a ruling that could potentially increase the number of copyright infringement actions, the Supreme Court of the United States has resolved a conflict among the circuits, holding that the equitable defense of laches cannot...more
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. -
In a case that will likely determine the standard of review used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over lower court claim constructions,...more
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
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on a petition challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s standard for determining when a patent claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2. See IP Update,...more
A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision authored by Justice Breyer, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of...more
In terms of the question presented, the Supreme Court of the United States answered that when a licensee seeks declaratory judgment against a patentee, asserting that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, “the...more
1—The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in a case challenging patent eligibility (under § 101) of method claims directed to a software embodiment and a corresponding system. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd....more
Appellate Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish In The Apple vs. Samsung Smart Phone Wars -
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the district court was within its...more
Patent Exhaustion Rejected: Patented Seed Purchaser Has No Right to Make Copies: Bowman v. Monsanto Co. -
In a narrow ruling that reaffirms the scope of patent protection over seeds, and possibly over other...more
5/31/2013
/ Arbitration ,
Bowman v Monsanto ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
FRAND ,
Genetically Engineered Seed ,
Infringement ,
Monsanto ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Standing ,
Trademarks
In a decision that may significantly impact international production and distribution practices for copyrighted works, the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday found that the Copyright Act’s first sale doctrine was...more
In This Issue:
Patents -
Supreme Court: State Court Has Jurisdiction over a Legal Malpractice Claim; Nothing Non-Obvious About Applying Pre-Existing Technology to the Internet; The Federal Circuit Is Not the...more
2/28/2013
/ Adverse Inference Instructions ,
America Invents Act ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Attorney Malpractice ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Design Patent ,
Destruction of Evidence ,
Direct Infringement ,
First-to-File ,
Gunn v Minton ,
Infringement ,
Jurisdiction ,
Mattel ,
MGA Entertainment ,
Misappropriation ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Reform ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trademarks
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Gunn v. Minton, determined that a Texas state court had jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim, even though resolving the claim required the state court to address an issue of...more
In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the trademark plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement suit, together with a covenant not to sue, deprived the district court of...more