Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 203: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment (Civ Pro)
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - San Diego Gulls’ Wings Clipped in Dispute Over Logo Copyright
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: San Diego Gulls’ Wings Clipped in Dispute Over Logo Copyright
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
On March 31, 2025, Judge Oetken granted summary judgment for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Samsung”) in an infringement suit brought against it by Dynamics Inc. (“Dynamics”). Dynamics Inc v....more
Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more
This case was the second opinion in a patent dispute saga between two poultry processing competitors over patented poultry chilling technology. See John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., 887 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir....more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Update: On September 15, 2021, ViiV applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39823). The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by ViiV from a decision of the Federal Court granting...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the Court granted Defendant L’Oréal’s...more
JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Before, Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Summary: Recoupment of monetary investment is not...more
In a recent decision, Flatwork Technologies LLC v Brierley (2020 FC 997), the Federal Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, Flatwork Technologies, LLC (Flatwork), in respect of its patent impeachment...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1386-LPS (D.Del. October 28, 2020), the Court, inter alia, denied Defendant’s motion for summary...more
A district court has ruled that the statutory estoppel arising from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding does not apply to anticipation and obviousness defenses that rely significantly on a physical device. The court also...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that a settlement agreement between a patentee and a defendant manufacturer released additional defendants from liability because their products used components...more
MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA - Before Reyna, Mayer and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: The scope of a claim term may be limited when...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1080 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addresses issues relating to the...more
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-2215, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020) - In this appeal from the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit...more
Chief Judge Saris of the District of Massachusetts has granted-in-part a product manufacturer’s motion seeking summary judgment of claim preclusion based on patentee’s prior assertion of the same patent against a component...more
This post summarizes two interesting opinions out of the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas in November 2019. Music Choice v. Stingray Dig. Grp. Inc.: What qualifies as sufficient disclosure of an expert’s...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
The Federal Court has now released the first decision in which the scope of Section 53.1 of the Canadian Patent Act—the so-called “file wrapper estoppel” provision—has been considered. We recently published an IP Update...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found claims directed to using data from a check to credit a merchant’s account before scanning the check to be subject matter ineligible under 35 USC § 101 as reciting an...more
Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more
United Cannabis (UCANN) holds U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 that covers a cannabinoid-based medical product formula invented by Tony Verzura and Earnie Blackmon. The patent issued August 15, 2017. UCANN filed suit against Pure...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
It is very common to defend against a claim of patent infringement by litigating in the district court and the PTAB in parallel. The most straightforward-way for the defendant to win is to persuade the PTAB that the asserted...more
On April 25, 2019, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that in the context of a patent, there are times when the conjunctive claim term "and" can be interpreted to mean a disjunctive "or". Judge...more