In This Issue:

- The New “Clear Error” Standard of Review in Patent Infringement Mediation

- Trademark Trial Appeal Board Decisions Now Have Preclusive Effect

- Engaging Panelists for Neutral Analysis Provides Invaluable Insight

- Protecting Confidentiality of Patent Infringement Settlements: Is Mediation Necessary?

- Ensuring the Right Insurance Coverage for Data Breach

- Excerpt from The New “Clear Error” Standard of Review in Patent Infringement Mediation:

In January 2015, in Teva v. Sandoz, the United States Supreme Court modified the standard of review and in so doing has created a basis for why parties should not see the appellate process as an opportunity to re-litigate the case.

In Teva, the Supreme Court held that when a district judge interprets the meaning of the words and phrases of a patent claim and, in so doing, decides a subsidiary question of fact, on appeal the Federal Circuit must review that factual decision under the “clear error” standard of review. In other words, the Federal Circuit must accept the district court’s findings of fact unless upon review the Federal Circuit is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.