In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more
LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2037, -2038 (Fed. Cir. 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered how to treat a prior art reference in which the alleged teaching of...more
LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION INC. Before Stoll, Cunningham, and Newman, Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a reference contains an “obvious”...more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD. v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: An order resolving all liability issues starts the clock for...more
IN RE: SAMSUNG ELECS., CO., LTD. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: Manipulation of venue through...more
Do you remember obviousness before KSR v. Teleflex? To invalidate, the rule went, one must find an express rationale for combining references (a teaching, suggestion or motivation). ...more
As patent-eligibility stands in 2018, it can be difficult to determine whether a graphical user interface (GUI) with an innovative layout and/or functionality meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. On one hand, a GUI is...more
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present our 2016 PTAB Year in Review. We begin with a look at 2016 activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which again ranked as the busiest jurisdiction in the...more
Core Wireless Licensing brought an action against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Core contended that LG infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850. LG moved for summary judgment on the grounds...more
Since the decision of Alice v. CLS Bank, courts have routinely invalidated patents for being directed to nothing more than abstract ideas with no inventive concept. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel for patent...more
As a follow-up to our Alert yesterday, the Board also designated their decision in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Tech Ltd., IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 (PTAB September 17, 2015) as precedential, a decision explaining the one-year...more
A Second Circuit 3-judge panel affirmed a district court decision denying a request for declaratory and injunctive relief while subsequently compelling arbitration in a licensing infringement suit. On appeal, LG Electronics,...more
When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become...more
Addressing the requirements for proof of prior art in inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that the petitioner failed to establish that certain documents cited qualified as...more
The Southern District of New York ordered LG Electronics Inc. to arbitrate with technology patent licensing company Wi-LAN Inc. a dispute over whether certain LG television models infringe patents LG does not own. The...more