News & Analysis as of

Cisco Patent Invalidity

Troutman Pepper

PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential

Troutman Pepper on

The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying...more

Jones Day

No Stay of Remedial Orders Even After PTAB Finds Claims Unpatentable

Jones Day on

The ITC has dealt a significant blow to the use of Inter Partes Review as a defense to a Section 337 investigation. In an order issued this week, the Commission denied a request to stay remedial orders that are currently on...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

ITC Denies Suspension or Temporary Rescission of Remedial Orders after PTAB Invalidates Patents at Issue

In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB Invalidates Two Cisco Patents Found Valid and Infringed at the ITC

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2016

Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more

King & Spalding

Intellectual Property Newsletter - July - August 2015

King & Spalding on

Protecting Trade Secrets in the Era of the Data Breach - The prevalence of data breaches cannot be ignored. New data breaches continue to occur one after an-other. In the first half of 2015 alone there were reports of...more

Mintz

Commil USA V. Cisco Systems: “I thought it was legal” is no defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)

Mintz on

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

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court: Good Faith Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is No Defense to Induced Patent Infringement

In a sharply divided opinion, the Supreme Court has determined that a party may be liable for inducing the infringement of a patent even if it has a good faith belief that the patent is invalid. The decision, Commil USA, LLC...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Litigation Alert: A Good-Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Inducement of Infringement

Fenwick & West LLP on

Six justices of the Supreme Court agree that an accused indirect infringer’s good faith belief in invalidity of a patent “will not negate the scienter required under §271(b).” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896,...more

Akerman LLP

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Further Clarifies the Requisite Intent for Induced Infringement after Global-Tech

Akerman LLP on

On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. that an alleged infringer's belief regarding patent validity cannot be used as evidence in a defense to an induced infringement claim. In so...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court on Induced Infringement: Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Not a Defense and Knowledge of Infringement Required

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a 6-2 decision this week, the United States Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015) held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Defense to Claims of Inducement of Patent Infringement

Foley Hoag LLP on

The Decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. - On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a party’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to a claim that the party has...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #5

SUPREME COURT CASES - Invalidity is not a Defense to Infringement but a Defense to Liability - This week, on May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. that a defendant’s...more

Mintz

Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is Not a Defense to Inducement Liability

Mintz on

The Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. on Tuesday holding that a patent infringement defendant’s good faith belief that the patent in suit is invalid is not a defense...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Good Faith Belief in Invalidity No Defense to Active Inducement

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Good-Faith Invalidity Defense to Induced Patent Infringement

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U. S. ____ ( 2015), rejecting the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ recognition of a defense to induced patent...more

Locke Lord LLP

Locke Lord QuickStudy: Belief As To A Patent’s Validity Is Not A Defense To Induced Infringement

Locke Lord LLP on

Following last year’s decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., 572 U.S. ____ (2014) (holding that a finding of induced infringement requires that all infringing acts be performed by a single...more

Cooley LLP

Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Good-Faith Belief in Invalidity as a Defense to Induced Patent Infringement

Cooley LLP on

In Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 13-896), the Supreme Court held that an accused inducer's belief that an asserted patent is invalid is not a defense to induced patent infringement. The decision reverses a...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Holds Good Faith Belief of Invalidity Not a Defense to Induced Infringement Claim

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (No. 13-896) that a defendant’s belief regarding patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Kennedy authored the...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

Supreme Court Holds That Belief of a Patent’s Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Inducement of Infringement

Proskauer Rose LLP on

On May 26, 2015, in Commil v. Cisco, the Supreme Court held by a 6-2 vote that an accused infringer's belief that a patent is invalid does not serve as a defense to charges of inducing infringement of the patent under §...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Supreme Court’s Decision in Commil v. Cisco: Big Win for Pharmaceutical Industry

On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and held that a defendant’s belief regarding patent validity is not a defense to an induced infringement...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

While the Supreme Court’s section 101 decisions may garner the biggest headlines, the high court has also invested significant efforts in the area of induced infringement. Commil v. Cisco, decided on May 26, 2015, marks the...more

22 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide