3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Kidon IP War Stories – David Cohen & Dragos Vilau
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
What's New on China's Punitive Damages in IP Litigation?
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the district court improperly characterized...more
This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a...more
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
In a joint appeal of two adverse decisions from the District Court, the Federal Circuit on procedural grounds rejected an appeal from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation...more
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: When assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, combining two abstract ideas does not make...more
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An expert witness can testify from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention even if they...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
Before Moore, Lourie, and Albright. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Awarding attorneys’ fees may be an abuse of discretion if the court relies on factors that should be...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more
Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins by providing an analysis of how institution decisions consider declaration testimony submitted by a patent owner. Next, it summarizes proposed rulemaking from the United States Patent and...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
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...more
Koss filed a patent infringement suit against Bose asserting the ’155, ’934, and ’025 patents, after which Bose petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents before the PTAB. The district court case was stayed...more
Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidity of all claims of two asserted patents as...more
Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-2367, -2368, 2024-1016, -1017 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024) Our case of the week focuses on the inherent power of the district courts to investigate fraud and...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. NATERA, INC. v. NEOGENOMICS LABORATORIES, INC. [OPINION] (2024-1324, 2024-1409, 7/12/2024) - Moore, Taranto, and Chen Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the district...more
Late last week in Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (24-1324), the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction ruling from the lower court that mostly prohibits NeoGenomics from selling its oncology test...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer properly pled a theory of inducement by alleging that the generic competitor promoted its product as “generic” to the branded...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that a US patent-holder plaintiff may be able to recover damages for a defendant’s foreign sales of infringing products if the foreign sales were proximately caused by the defendant’s improperly...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