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
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
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 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