What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
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
Last month the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the Lashify case that significantly broadens the opportunity for companies to bring a lawsuit before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC is known for...more
Given the continued challenges in policing the burgeoning ENDS marketplace, as previously discussed in Part I of this article, in mid-2024 FDA and DOJ announced the establishment of a federal multi-agency task force to combat...more
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the...more
Given the recent unanimous decision by a UK appellate court that Ericsson’s injunction efforts based on standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) were, essentially by their very nature, “hold-up” and “coercion” that violated...more
Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Before: Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from ITC Investigation. The Federal Circuit expands the economic prong of the domestic-industry analysis to include domestic spending on...more
Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision,...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
On March 5, the Federal Circuit held that sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution expenditures may count as “employment of labor or capital” for purposes of satisfying the economic domestic industry...more
For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...more
In Lashify v. ITC, the Federal Circuit held that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, which is a precondition for obtaining International Trade Commission Section 337 relief, can be satisfied with...more
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lowered barriers that one must overcome to enforce patents at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC often proves to be an effective forum to...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
A recent opinion issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission in Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1370) serves as a reminder for sellers to be cautious with any...more
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission significantly alters the landscape for small companies seeking recourse against foreign infringers. The court...more
Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remain an efficient and powerful method for American businesses seeking relief from foreign acts of unfair competition, including infringement of...more
On Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Wuhan Healthgen Biotech. Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1389, 2025 WL 420819 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently issued its first decision, in case UPC_CFI_239/2023, addressing infringement by equivalence. The patent in suit (EP2137782) was determined not to be infringed by the ‘literal’ scope of...more
Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen (UPC_Coa-405/2024) and Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL BV (UPC_CoA-402/2024); December 20, 2024. The UPC Court of Appeal has confirmed a strict approach to correcting erroneous...more
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remains a pivotal forum for addressing intellectual property disputes under Section 337, particularly those involving design patents. Although the Commission issued no remedial...more
On December 19, 2024, FDA formally announced the end of the tirzepatide shortage in a Declaratory Order issued to Eli Lilly & Co. (“Lilly”). Lilly is tirzepatide’s patentholder and the manufacturer of the two branded versions...more
A US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, and Raymond Chen recently heard oral argument in Lashify, Inc. v. US International Trade Commission, an appeal from a...more
On January 8, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued a public version of the Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1380 brought by Complainant Nokia. While...more
Please join Fitch Even for a free webinar, “180 Days of UPC: How It Started… How It’s Going…,” on Wednesday, November 29, at 9:00 a.m. PST / 10:00 a.m. MST / 11:00 a.m. CST / 12 Noon EST. The Unified Patent Court (UPC)...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more
On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and triggered the UPC’s entry into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC will revolutionize patent enforcement across Europe and impact companies...more