News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation Motorola

Fish & Richardson

ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2023

Fish & Richardson on

This month’s ITC Wrap-Up reviews a recent investigation exploring exemptions to the Commission’s remedial orders. Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304, Final Determination (Dec. 18, 2023)....more

Jones Day

Explanations, Not Bare Citations, Needed To Establish Prior Art Date

Jones Day on

Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Weintraub Tobin

District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees Even After Granting Clear Summary Judgment On Noninfringement Grounds

Weintraub Tobin on

In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining...more

BakerHostetler

Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola: Use = Benefit for the Purposes of System Claims Infringement

BakerHostetler on

On Sept. 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit clarified the meaning of the term “use” as it applies to system claims in patent infringement actions. In doing so, the court held that an infringer...more

K&L Gates LLP

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

K&L Gates LLP on

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Common Sense Is Not So Common-ly Obvious

Almost a decade has elapsed since the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. altered the law of patent obviousness. In reversing the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Court in KSR limited the...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The PTAB Review - August 2016

Covered Business Method Patent Review: What Constitutes a Financial Product or Service? Along with inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), the America Invents Act (AIA) created a transitional program for...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

Focusing on the Claims, the PTAB Denies CBM Review of a Market Research Patent - On April 13, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - October 2015

The Survey Says: Tiffany Is Not Generic for A Ring Setting - Last month, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Tiffany & Co. on its trademark infringement claim against Costco Wholesale...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Section 325(d) Does Not Preclude All Second Petitions - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Addressing its decision to institute a covered business method (CBM) patent review based on a second petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that its decision...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Ninth Circuit is the First Appeals Court to Rule on RAND/SEP Licensing

In a decision written by Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appels for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a first-of-its-kind district court judgment relating to royalty rates for standard-essential...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

What is a RAND Licensing Rate? The Ninth Circuit Weighs in.

July has just ended, and SEP and FRAND issues are in the air. On July 8, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) sought public comments on its proposed amendments to its Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Regarding Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Obligations in Patent Licensing...

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding Microsoft $14.5 million for Motorola's breach of its obligation to offer Microsoft reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licenses for certain...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

The European Court of Justice on Enforcement of FRAND Patents: Huawei v. ZTE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its highly anticipated ruling in Huawei v. ZTE on the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) which are subject to a FRAND commitment. SEPs play a significant role in the...more

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update - April 2015

King & Spalding on

Motorola’s Appeal To Ninth Circuit Of A Jury Determination That Motorola Breached Its FRAND Obligation – In a case involving the first time a federal district court judge determined a FRAND royalty rate for standard essential...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - February 2015 #3

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Throws Out $2 Million Award to Nvidia and Sony - Despite the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness decision making it easier to award attorneys’ fees, the Federal Circuit has...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Assignment Consideration Can Be Representation, Support and Opportunity - Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether a patent was properly assigned and whether claims of inventorship fraud were properly barred by the statute of limitations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s summary...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - Attorney's Fees, FRAND-encumbered Patents, and IPRs (May 2014)

Knobbe Martens on

Standard For Obtaining Attorney’s Fees Too High - In OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., Appeal No. 12-1184, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the district...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Could Federal Circuit Decision Weaken FRAND Defense?

On Monday, May 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by transferring the Microsoft v. Motorola case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued an order which may significantly impact the ability of...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Federal Circuit Rules No Per Se Prohibition Against Injunctions For FRAND-Encumbered Standard Essential Patents

On April 25, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the appeal from Judge Posner’s ruling that denied both Motorola and Apple damages and injunctive relief in Apple Inc. v....more

McDermott Will & Emery

“Inherency Requires More Than Probabilities” - Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether an essential claim limitation is inherently present in a prior art reference for purposes of an anticipation analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling out of the U.S....more

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update—September 10, 2013

King & Spalding on

- Jury Finds That Motorola Breached FRAND Obligations By Offering Microsoft A License At An Unreasonable Royalty Rate – On September 4, 2013, a Jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington...more

22 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide