Elizabeth Holmes, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 34]
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
The split among district courts as to whether the filing of a patent infringement complaint provides notice to a defendant of its infringing conduct sufficient to support a claim of willful infringement was the subject of a...more
Partners Matt Johnson and Sarah Geers talk about former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu's impact on the PTAB, and what we might expect from a new director under the Biden Administration. They also comment on why patent litigation...more
In December 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) designated an opinion as precedential (Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corporation), where the Board instituted trial, i.e., did not exercise its...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,1 the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases...more
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (as a basis of a successful cause of action having renewed vigor before the Federal Circuit recently (see, e.g., "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC") is...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated two more opinions as “precedential” dealing with its discretion to reject petitions for inter partes review (IPR) or similar post-grant reviews. Under 35 U.S.C. §...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more
In August 2018, the Patent Office foreshadowed that the Board would be expanding the use of its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)/324(a) and 325(d) to deny petitions. The Office explained that “[t]here may be other reasons...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
In a proceeding that included Patent Office Director Andrei Iancu on the panel, the PTAB issued an order this past week denying institution of 3 IPRs filed by Valve. The decision demonstrates that the PTAB continues to...more
On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated as informative three cases involving discretionary denial of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We previously profiled the case of Hospira, Inc. v....more
On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira,...more
Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement in an effort to support the collection of enhanced damages from an infringer. Typically, if there was willful infringement the damages were enhanced and often...more
Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more
A recent report and recommendation issued in the District of Massachusetts is one of the first cases to interpret – and arguably, to extend – the Supreme Court’s recent decision on willful infringement, Halo Electronics, Inc....more
The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more
Section 284 of The Patent Act provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Under Seagate, to be entitled to enhanced damages under § 284, a patent...more
Patent owners will more likely seek enhanced damages; accused infringers no longer insulated by “attorney’s ingenuity” after the fact. Summary - The Federal Circuit’s 2007 Seagate decision raised the bar for...more
Although under the Patent Act, “a court may increase the damages [for patent infringement] up to three times,” 35 U.S.C. § 284, enhanced damages awards are infrequent. For nearly a decade, the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 USC § 284, finding that both the substantive requirement for...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Halo Electronics, decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., in which the Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test and established a...more
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more