Connecticut Collections: How to get paid if you are owed money? Part 2: Prejudgment Remedy ("PJR")
In a split decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of more than $5 million in attorneys’ fees, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the...more
In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions. There has been much discussion about the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holdings on claim construction and the scope of judicial review in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding....more
The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The Court unanimously held the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can give claims in inter partes...more
PTAB’s Institution Decision Remains Largely Unreviewable - What You Need To Know - Summary - In its first case addressing an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), the Supreme Court’s In re Cuozzo decision unanimously...more
Patent Office’s Decision To Institute IPR Not Reviewable - In IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Federal Circuit held it lacks jurisdiction to review the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review....more
As inter partes review (IPR) practice continues to develop and practitioners feel their way around the edges, the last month brought helpful guidance from a trio of forums: the Federal Circuit, the Central District of...more
On February 5, the Federal Circuit issued its first decision on an appeal of a final written decision of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”). The decision addressed two outstanding questions of interest to IPR proceedings. First,...more