Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
(Podcast) The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
RICO's Person/Enterprise Distinction - RICO Report Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Navigating Civil Standing Requirements for Defense Success — RICO Report Podcast
Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
Second Circuit Decision Potentially Broadens RICO Proximate Cause Element - RICO Report Podcast
Anatomy of a Successful Motion to Dismiss in RICO Case
A Discussion on the Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees Decision
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Case Involving Burger King Employee Spitting in Officer’s Burger Goes Before WA Supreme Court
United States Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks (E.D.N.Y.) recommended that Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Wiesel’s (“Wiesel”) action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,514 (the “’514...more
On April 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit brought by Recentive Analytics, Inc. against Fox Corporation. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v....more
Recently, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Andrew Walker, Jr.’s (“Walker”) Second Amended Complaint be granted for lack of...more
Amarin sells the drug icosapent ethyl under the brand name Vascepa. Vascepa is approved by the FDA for two indications: (i) to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition characterized by blood triglyceride levels greater...more
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
On February 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., where the Court held that a “a prior final written decision of the [PTAB] of unpatentability on separate...more
Three subjects stood out in patent litigation in Texas in December 2024: (1) knowledge of related patents, general patent portfolio, or other asserted patents do not establish the knowledge requirement for pre-suit indirect...more
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the...more
On January 3, 2025, District Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Defendant Trustpilot, Inc.’s (“Trustpilot”) Motion to Dismiss Linfo IP, LLC’s (“Linfo”) complaint alleging that Trustpilot directly and indirectly infringed U.S....more
In biomodal Ltd. v. New England BioLabs, Inc., No. 24-cv-11697-RGS, Dkt. No. 78 (D. Mass. Nov. 2024), Defendant New England BioLabs, Inc. (“NEB”) filed a motion to dismiss the claims of infringement of five patents as...more
On October 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing claim construction at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. In UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18,...more
Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our new review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that advice is best coming from counsel, Texas claims...more
UTTO INC. v. METROTECH CORP. Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: The district court erred in construing the claims at the motion...more
Failure to Obtain Advice of a Third Party Is Not Evidence of Willfulness - In Provisur Technologies, Inc., v. Weber, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1438, the Federal Circuit held that patentees cannot use an accused infringer’s failure...more
In an appeal stemming from the denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified its precedent and explained that a district court may construe claims...more
On October 18, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024), addressing, in relevant part, the propriety of claim construction at the Rule 12...more
On September 26, 2024, District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic Games”)’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff AK Meeting IP, LLC (“AK”)’s allegations...more
On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed...more
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
Courts have long interpreted Title 35 of the U.S. Code, Section 101, to bar patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature or natural phenomena. But until six years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's...more
In the recent decision of Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17637 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2024), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under...more
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional language without specifying the...more
Universal Connectivity Tech. Inc. v. Dell Tech. Inc., 1-23-cv-01506 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 34, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower to Judge Pitman - A magistrate judge recommended denying...more
Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates from Lump Sum Licenses - In Ecofactor, Inc. V. Google LLC, Appeal No. 23-1101, The Federal Circuit held that license agreements containing a lump sum payment “based on” a royalty...more
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to storing and providing medical images over the web as “virtual views” were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they involved nothing more than “converting data and...more