Grants of permanent injunctions in U.S. district court patent litigation remain uncommon since the landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange. LexMachina’s 2021 Patent Litigation Report highlights that courts grant fewer than...more
In 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) announced six factors to be used in determining whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) when a fast-moving parallel district court litigation could determine the...more
It is said that Andy Warhol painted the famous Campbell’s Soup Cans after an art gallery proprietor told him to paint “something you see every day and something that everybody would recognize.” While Mr. Warhol’s Campbell’s...more
We’ve previously written that the best defense to an IPR challenge is avoiding IPR institution altogether. In addition to the other tips discussed in this series of posts, another strategy for avoiding institution is focusing...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has designated two key institution decisions as “Informative.” With these informative decisions, the PTAB has provided guidance on how the PTAB will apply efficiency and fairness...more
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
7/7/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Expert Testimony ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 103
In a rare reversal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) reassessed the Fintiv factors in a decision on a petition for rehearing of a previous decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”). The PTAB had...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently sent a warning to alleged infringers not to wait for the one year deadline to file IPR petitions, or risk discretionary denial. On May 13, 2020, the PTAB exercised its...more
On May 5, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated one decision as precedential and removed the precedential designation on another. The newly-designated precedential opinion lays out factors that the PTAB...more
On Monday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Cal Technologies, the Supreme Court held that § 315(b) time-bar determinations are not subject to judicial review. In this 7-2 decision penned by Justice Ginsburg, with Justices Gorsuch...more
4/22/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
In its recent decision, Fiber, LLC. v. Ciena Corp., No. 2019-1005 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a reminder that the structure necessary to satisfy the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that it may not rely on evidence and arguments that fall outside the scope of the instituted grounds...more
A recent decision from the Northern District of New York provides a detailed outline for analyzing venue in patent infringement cases, and may provide facts that companies with equipment installed in other districts should...more
Services play a large role in today’s economy, and it is important to be mindful of how certain pitfalls that apply to product-based intellectual property rights also apply to method or process-based intellectual property...more
The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme...more
3/15/2019
/ Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Iancu v. Brunetti ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
Scandalous/Immoral Marks ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vulgar or Offensive Marks
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent...more
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) held that pre-commercial or non-commercial items qualify as “articles” for purposes of section 337 investigations. The decision opens up the...more
Following a lengthy and extensive litigation that began in 2011 that culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016, smartphone industry titans Apple and Samsung will again find themselves in Federal District...more
The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue....more
5/26/2017
/ Forum Shopping ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
State of Residency ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
On Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that could have a profound impact on where patent infringement cases may be litigated....more
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board. Approximately one week after issuing the recent Unwired Planet v....more
“You sued them. They stay, period.” This is the conclusion a Texas trial court came to when asked to exclude the designated representative of a party from a hearing where an employee of the other party, a direct competitor,...more
It has become a patent litigation trope, discussed at every Silicon Valley water cooler, that patent litigation is broken because all patent cases are tried in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas. While this...more
What do Washington D.C.’s NFL team, the Redskins, and Mr. Tam’s rock band, The Slants, have in common? Both have enjoyed unexpected victories recently and both have been called “disparaging” by the Patent and Trademark Office...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement...more
8/3/2015
/ Cisco ,
Cisco v CommilUSA ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Good Faith ,
Honest Belief Defense ,
Induced Infringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Willful Infringement