Coverage Litigation Leapfrog: Why Venue Matters and How to Avoid Pre-emptive Strike Actions
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 267: Listen and Learn -- UCC 2-207 ("The Battle of the Forms")
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
A district court has ruled that the exclusive statute for determining venue in patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), did not override the parties prior agreement on where suit could be brought. The court also ruled that transfer...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services...more
Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C....more
The DTSA After One Year: Has the Federal Trade Secrets Law Met Expectations? - On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation –...more
This timely webinar will provide insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which has reshaped procedural...more
Last week, Judge Nelson of the District of Minnesota decided that further briefing on venue in The Valspar Corp. et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc. was appropriate given the recent TC Heartland decision by the Supreme Court. This...more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved where a domestic corporation "resides" for purposes of the patent venue statute. The Court narrowed the meaning of "resides" under 28 U.S.C....more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, 581 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision and clarified the proper scope of venue pursuant to the patent venue statute, 28...more
In a highly anticipated opinion significantly narrowing the first prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC unanimously held that a domestic...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland will undoubtedly have a substantial impact on patent venue selection and will likely lead to a marked decrease in cases brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Under the Supreme...more
The US Supreme Court this week held that the broad venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) does not apply to patent law—at least, when the defendant is a domestic entity. This decision arises after years of judicial...more
#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more
On June 1, 2016, District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant ASUS Computer International’s (“ACI’s”) motion to transfer its patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California, where it is...more
Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce theory. Defendants shipped approximately 2% of the accused products from their Indiana manufacturing facility to two customer distribution facilities in Delaware. ...more