RPX petitioned for inter partes review of ChanBond’s ’822 patent. The Board instituted the IPR and determined that RPX did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable. RPX appealed the final written decision to the...more
On Monday, May 22, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, overruling the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and...more
The Supreme Court on Monday substantially narrowed the district court venues available to patent owners seeking to sue for infringement. In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme...more
On May 22, 2017, in a highly-anticipated decision that could dramatically alter the landscape of patent litigation, the United States Supreme Court held that the “resides” prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C....more
On May 22, 2017, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected prior case law allowing patent holders to rely on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), to file suit where a domestic defendant makes sales. TC Heartland,...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court re-defined the scope of venue in patent cases in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017). Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, venue in patent cases will now be...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just shook up the patent world with its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. For nearly 30 years, companies accused of patent infringement could be sued in nearly any place they...more
On May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important and long-awaited Opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that centered on where a patent infringement suit can be filed. In a resounding 8-0...more
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court disrupted nearly three decades of patent venue practice by reversing the Federal Circuit in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland significantly...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished a decades-old rule that allowed for application of the equitable defense of laches in patent cases. Until now, patent owners were required to justify filing suit after a period of...more
A Smooth Patch in a Rough Road? Governmental Transition and Intellectual Property - Whenever a new Congress convenes, some IP issues come to the fore while others take a back seat. Transition to a new administration in the...more
On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket...more
In a recent holding, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) may be premised on "disparate impact," meaning that a plaintiff may challenge a practice even if it was not...more
Laches is an equitable defense based on a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in pursuing a claim. In 2014, the Supreme Court effectively eliminated the laches defense in copyright cases, ruling that the copyright statute allows...more
In considering a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees in view of the Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness standard for finding an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (IP Update Vol. 17, No. 5), the U.S. Court of Appeals...more
Intellectual property litigation is expensive for both the plaintiff and defendant. However, because defendants are required to defend themselves in a lawsuit—in comparison to a plaintiff who has the choice to file and...more
With the advent of the America Invents Act (AIA), public perception of frivolous patent litigation, frequently surrounding cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs), has received increasing legislative attention. Although...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more
United States antitrust law seeks to encourage free and open competition by preventing exclusionary conduct that threatens the competitive process. Intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, by contrast, are designed to...more
On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions that could curtail abusive patent practices implemented by "patent trolls" or non-practicing entities (NPE) by relaxing the legal standards for awarding...more
On October 1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the “exceptional” case standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in two separate patent-infringement cases. Both cases relate to patentees who are...more