Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Appeal No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2024) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit helped clarify which facts may be...more
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Lindsey Laurain, Appeal Nos. 2022-1905, -1970 (Fed. Cir. Apr.12, 2024) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s bench trial decision that unclean hands...more
This post summarizes two recent Eastern District of Texas opinions regarding the award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00718 (EDTX Mar. 29, 2022) (Roy S....more
In 2021, district courts were faced with resolving numerous requests by parties seeking attorney fees based on conduct in related USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Many of these requests came in the wake...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the...more
ENERGY HEATING, LLC v. HEAT ON-THE-FLY, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. Summary: Enforcing a patent with knowledge that it is invalid can...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1037 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020) - In this Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the bench trial ruling of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-2054, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week features a new precedential decision dealing with the doctrine of...more
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ordering plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC to pay over $700,000 in fees that accrued...more
Addressing the issue of whether litigation costs that exceed potential damages necessarily render a case exceptional, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that they did not....more
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. In September...more
Addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees in connection with exceptional cases under 35 USC § 285, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a case was exceptional based on...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more
• In a precedential opinion in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's Section 101...more
Addressing the appeal of a judgment that four US patents were infringed and not invalid, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: • Found waiver regarding a claim construction issue • Found direct infringement...more
The Federal Circuit recently upheld a district court’s decision to tax a patent infringement plaintiff with its opponent’s attorneys’ fees based on an inadequate presuit investigation into infringement, even though the patent...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2490, -2494 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2018) The Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which...more
We wrote about this case six months ago, regarding InvestPic's appeal to the Federal Circuit over having its patent invalided under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Northern District of Texas. InvestPic did not get the outcome it was...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A case may be exceptional if: (1) fact witnesses are compensated based on the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...more
On May 24, 2018, Apple was awarded a verdict of $533 million for Samsung’s infringement of three Apple design patents. While unsuccessful ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) were filed against two of those three design patents,...more
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith. This can become an expensive misstep during...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more