News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation

More Aqua Products Fallout -- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge

In November, Chief Judge David P. Ruschke of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products" (see "PTAB Motions to...more

The Supreme Court to Consider Patent Infringement Damages Accrued Abroad

by Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to consider whether damages for infringement of a U.S. patent include lost profits resulting from activities outside the U.S....more

Prosecution History Informs Claim Meaning Even Without Unmistakable Disclaimer

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

Although non-precedential, the Federal Circuit decision in Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. is worth a read to see how the court “tiptoes” the “fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and...more

Can Evidence of Noninstitution of an IPR be Introduced in District Court? Yes and No

by Jones Day on

With institution rates of IPR petitions continuing to slide, and with district courts determining (depending on narrow or broad readings of the Shaw case) how estoppel may or may not apply in district court to noninstituted...more

ALJ Emphasizes Importance of Procedural Schedule

by Jones Day on

In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Bullock granted Respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. (collectively,...more

Employment Agreement That Included a “Will Assign” Provision, a Trust Provision, and a Quitclaim Provision Insufficient to...

In Advanced Video v. HTC, the Federal Circuit affirmed that Advanced Video Technologies (“Advanced Video”) lacked standing to bring an infringement suit because the future-tense “will assign” provision in the Employment...more

Courts Can Review the PTAB’s Time-Bar Determination of IPR Institution

In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), the Federal Circuit, en banc, held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s time-bar determination under § 315(b) is reviewable. The Court...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

The Supreme Court is taking another patent case, granting certiorari in WesternGeco v. Ion. A divided panel of the Circuit had ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits as a result of the sale of components of...more

Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

One of the most important (if not the most important) inquiries in performing due diligence involving acquisition of a patent portfolio is ensuring that the entity asserting ownership of the patents actually has proper title...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Time Bar Determinations Appealable

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

On January 10, the en banc Federal Circuit held in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. that inter partes review time bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) are appealable, and explicitly overruled Achates Reference...more

Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems: Attaching Security Profile to a Downloadable Is Patent Eligible

by BakerHostetler on

In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter (affirming the District Court determination that certain claims were...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report - January 2018

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Micro Labs Ltd. v. Santen Pharmaceutical Co. - PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01434; filed May 12,...more

PTAB Designates Two New Informative Decisions Addressing IPR Filing Issues

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

The PTAB recently designated two decisions as informative that concern the time bar to filing an inter partes review (IPR). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting...more

Wordlogic Corp. v. Fleksy, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017)

Wordlogic brought an action against Fleksy in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,681,124 and 8,552,984. Flesky moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that...more

Judge Andrews Issues Markman Ruling In Infringement Action Construing Nine (9) Disputed Terms In Patents-In-Suit

by Fox Rothschild LLP on

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Civil Action No. 16-812-RGA (D.Del. January 12, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman ruling...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - January 2018

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its latest newsletter. The newsletter addresses a number of current IP topics, ranging from the constitutionality and judicial reviewability of inter partes review to...more

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

The year's first substantive patent-eligibility decision from the Federal Circuit is a rare victory for the patentee. It is also further evidence that the outcome of an eligibility analysis may be more dependent upon how the...more

2017 – It was biotech and pharma who kept the Australian legal system busy

by FPA Patent Attorneys on

2016 saw the Australian legal system deal with the questions that ranged from defining a human being to defining an inventor. 2017 proved to be just as interesting, and just as informative for patentees and applicants as to...more

Just in Time: Federal Court of Appeals Reconsiders Prior Decision on Availability of Judicial Review of IPRs

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsiders its previous decision on the availability of judicial review of IPRs. The statutes, namely 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(d) and 315(b), governing institution of inter partes...more

State University's Filing Of Patent Infringement Action Waives Sovereign Immunity To IPR Proceedings

The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) of the USPTO recently issued a decision that a filing of a patent infringement action by a public university waives sovereign immunity to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in the...more

The USPTO’s Nautilus

The Office rejected claims to a “water leakage detector” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. In particular, the Office found that the water detector “configured to be reliably installed by an untrained...more

Inducement After Importation Actionable Under Section 337

by Jones Day on

Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337. Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement. In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues...more

Liability for Inducement Where There is Divided Infringement

by Workman Nydegger on

In 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a decision Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) that found Teva liable for inducement of method claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 even though no...more

Broader Reading of IPR Estoppel Foreclosed by Shaw

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently found that the scope of inter partes review estoppel was limited to only those grounds specifically instituted in an IPR proceeding, applying the standard set...more

Unclaimed Features Doom Patent Claims Under Section 101 Eligibility Analysis — Lessons from Two-Way Media

When claims are subject to the subject matter eligibility inquiry under 35 USC 101, details matter. In previous posts, the Patent 213 blog has stressed the need to provide details of the invention not only in the...more

4,926 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 198
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.