The Supreme Court recently answered the question whether a patent owner can collect damages caused by an infringer’s sales outside the U.S. Federal law typically reaches only conduct within the country, but the justices made...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more
Patents are valuable intellectual property assets that grant their owners a limited monopoly over the sale and use of the patented subject matter for a fixed period of time. The patent permits its owner to recover potentially...more
Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more
On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)....more
On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more
Supreme Court Restricts the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law for Exported Goods - On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent...more
In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more
In a near-unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Life Technologies v. Promega that supplying a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35 U.S.C....more
Last week, the Supreme Court provided much-needed clarity to U.S. companies concerned about their potential liability for supplying a single component of a multicomponent invention abroad. The Court’s decision in Life...more
On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held that there is no patent infringement when an entity supplies "a single component" from the United States for combination into "a multicomponent invention" outside the United...more
On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). See...more
Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act provides that a party infringes a patent claim when it "supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention...more
In a 7-0 decision issued on February 22, 2017, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that exporting a single component of a multicomponent invention for combination abroad does not give rise...more
On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of...more
On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Life Technologies. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017) (Roberts, C.J., recused), holding that manufacturing and exporting a single component...more
In an opinion that will likely give peace of mind to businesses shipping products from the U.S. abroad, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, reversed the Federal Circuit in Life Technologies v....more
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on February 22, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. limits the ability of a U.S. patent to cover infringing activity abroad. In particular, the Court held that a single component of a...more
Today, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.,1 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35...more
The two federal antitrust agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issued a proposed update to the Agencies’ 1995 Antitrust Guidelines for...more
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 14-1538, to resolve: “[w]hether a supplier can be held liable for providing ‘all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented...more