Fish & Richardson

Contact
Share
Info
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110-1878, United States
Phone: (617) 542-5070
Fax: (617) 542-8906
Areas of Practice
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Commercial Law & Contracts
  • Communications & Media Law
  • Finance & Banking
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Privacy
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
  • Transportation
See more
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • California
  • D.C.
  • Delaware
  • Georgia
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • New York
  • Texas
Other Countries
  • Germany
Number of Attorneys
100+ Attorneys

EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up — April 2018

This post is our latest review of noteworthy case developments in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas for the month of April 2018. Two subjects stand out this month from the Eastern District: (1) testimony of damages…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit Holds That Plaintiff Bears the Burden of Proving Venue in Patent Cases

In an order issued May 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court order that denied a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The Court held that, in challenges to venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406:…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Legal Alert: Implications of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu

As the most-active firm practicing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), we are proud to have shared in our clients’ successes over the years. Fish was one of the first firms to file a post-grant petition in 2012, and…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

Massachusetts Patent Litigation Wrap Up – March 2018

This post is part of a monthly series summarizing notable activity in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

What Do Human Traffickers, Money Launderers, and Patent Non-practicing Entities Have in Common?

Generally, courts will not scrutinize the business decisions of litigants. Concerns arise, however, when such decisions are improperly made for the purposes of abusing the judicial process. One business decision that has…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Update: PTAB Releases “Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings”

The U.S. Supreme Court issued SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, on April 24, 2018. The PTAB published guidance on the impacts of the decision, on April 26th, 2018 outlining how it plans to proceed…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

No Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction in Dispute Over Avastin® Biosimilar Launch Date; Questions Remain

On April 17, 2018, Judge Sleet of the District of Delaware dismissed Genentech’s declaratory judgment claim seeking to hold Amgen to representations made in its 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(3)(B) patent dance statements that it would not…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – March 2018

This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of various substantive orders issued in pending cases…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up — March 2018

This post is another entry in our monthly survey of substantive orders in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas. This month, there were several decisions in two areas of interest: (1) awards of attorneys’ fees, and (2)…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

USPTO Pilot Program Regarding Specimen Authenticity

U.S. trademark practitioners have long dealt with the issue of applicants, either deliberately or innocently, claiming use of a mark with a far broader scope of goods than is actually the case. This results in a “bloat” of the…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property

Embedding Content is Safe, Right? A Recent Case Says No, Creating Serious Concerns for Websites with Unlicensed Third-party Content

In the United States, copyright owners have a number of exclusive rights, including the right to publicly display a work of visual art. This would include, for instance, the right to post a copyrighted photograph on a website…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Two Recent Trademark Decisions Provide Ammunition for Trademark Owners Who Receive Improper Specimen Refusals for Service Marks

In the past few years, many trademark practitioners have noticed an increase in the number of rejections for trademark specimens – the documents that applicants submit to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – February 2018

This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of various substantive orders issued in pending cases. Cutsforth, Inc. v. LEMM Liquidating Co., No…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Declaratory Judgment Litigation Brought by Biosimilar Manufacturers

Courts have begun to shape the contours of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and the progress of biosimilar litigation, but the use of declaratory judgment actions by biosimilar manufacturers remains a…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit Takes Up Venue Burden Issue

In a pending mandamus petition, the Federal Circuit signaled that it will address the issue of which party bears the burden of proof when venue is challenged in a patent infringement action. In re ZTE (USA), No. 2018-113 (Fed…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Showing 1-15 of 280 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 19
This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.