Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
Innovating with AI: Ensuring You Own Your Inventions
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Third-party IPRs can moot previously favorable decisions and leave a previously successful party to bear its own costs. On October 16, 2024, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the plaintiff’s Motion to be Confirmed as the...more
This case addresses whether attorney’s fees are warranted due to an inequitable conduct and conflict of interest defense. Background - UCANN filed suit in the District of Colorado in July 2018, accusing Pure Hemp of...more
In 2018, United Cannabis Corporation (“UCANN”) sued Pure Hemp Collective (“Pure Hemp”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 (the “‘911 patent”), entitled “Cannabis Extracts and Methods of Preparing and Using the...more
The Patent Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a recent denial of a motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 285, an Ohio...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit updated its earlier opinion to remove language ascribing motive to a prolific inventor’s actions before the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Case Nos....more
Since the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., district courts have had expanded discretion to award prevailing party attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases” under the Patent...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more
O.F. MOSSBERG & SONS, INC. v. TIMNEY TRIGGERS, LLC - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Summary: A stay, followed by a voluntary dismissal,...more
When is the winning party not the prevailing party? Well, it depends. In the last two weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided two cases with very similar facts that presented that very question. In...more
A defendant facing a newly filed lawsuit has options when deciding how to respond to the complaint. Some responses automatically excuse the defendant from answering the complaint temporarily (e.g., a motion to dismiss under...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that an accused infringer was the “prevailing party” entitled to fees under Rule 54(d)(1) when the patent owner’s claim was dismissed for...more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments in the Northern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas for the month of October 2019....more
In her September 2018 summary judgment decision, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) found that one of seven patents asserted by Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co. ("SVC") was invalid, and that SVC was not entitled to a...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. FACEBOOK, INC. Before Lourie, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Summary: A decision on the merits is not a prerequisite...more
Inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings often arise in the context of high-stakes patent infringement litigation, and district courts frequently stay litigation pending parallel IPRs, which may fully resolve a...more
The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon in Broadsoft, Inc. v. Callwave Communication, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-711-RGA (D.Del. August 8, 2019) issued a Magistrate Judge Opinion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of...more
The federal patent laws provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in exceptional patent infringement cases. 35 U.S.C. §285. An exceptional case is determined based on the totality of the circumstances....more
On March 25, 2018, the District Court in Nichia Corporation v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8-16-cv-00545 (CACD 2019-03-25, Order), granted defendant’s motion to preclude plaintiff’s damages expert from testifying that plaintiff...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark...more
Among the more interesting EDTX/NDTX opinions last month was a decision by Magistrate Judge Payne regarding §285 attorneys’ fees. As a reminder, 35 U.S.C. §285 provides that, in an action for patent infringement, “[a] court...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
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
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LP (D.Del. October 16, 2017), the Court denied Defendants motion for...more