News & Analysis as of

Patents Reversal IP License

McDermott Will & Emery

Radio Silence Alone Doesn’t Prove Equitable Estoppel Defense

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment grant based on an equitable estoppel defense, finding that the accused infringer failed to show that the patent owner’s silence or...more

Lathrop GPM

Federal Circuit Reverses Preliminary Injunction on Franchisor’s Patent and Trade Dress Infringement Claim

Lathrop GPM on

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction granted as to franchisor Urban Air’s patent and trade dress infringement claims against Kangaroo, LLC. UATP IP, LLC v. Kangaroo, LLC, 2024 WL 658205 (Fed....more

Knobbe Martens

Notice Letters and Communications May Form a Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Notice letters and related...more

Knobbe Martens

Patentee Failed to Apportion Licenses to Bundled Patents to Establish Royalties

Knobbe Martens on

OMEGA PATENTS, LLC v. CALAMP CORPORATION - Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Licensing policies that allow use of any or all of a...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - April 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ..WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION [OPINION]  (2020-1041, April 6, 2021) (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL) - Dyk, J.  Affirming related district court judgments holding...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Standard Essential Patent Licensing Practices Do Not Violate Antitrust Laws

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court decision that found Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices violate antitrust laws and reversed a permanent, worldwide injunction against several of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Ins. (9th Cir. 2020)

Ninth Circuit Overturns District Court Judge Lucy Koh's Decision That Qualcomm's Licensing and Chip Sales Practices Are Antitrust Violations - The Federal Trade Commission has a history of taking positions and aggressively...more

Knobbe Martens

Eleventh Amendment Protects States From Involuntary Joinder in Patent Suits

Knobbe Martens on

Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Summary: A state can invoke sovereign immunity under the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Patent Sublicense Does Not Automatically Survive Termination of Principal License

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal based on a license defense, explaining that it was improper to dismiss until the district court had interpreted the license agreement....more

McAfee & Taft

Gavel to Gavel: Supreme Court provides clarity

McAfee & Taft on

Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - December 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more

Knobbe Martens

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.: Supreme Court Limits Patent Infringement Liability for Suppliers Under § 271(f)(1)

Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp held that providing a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

One is Not Enough – Infringement Liability under § 271(f)(1)

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Holds that Restricted Sales and Foreign Sales Do Not Exhaust Patent Rights: Lexmark International, Inc. v....

In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., the en banc Federal Circuit held that (1) the sale of an article under clearly communicated and otherwise lawful restrictions on use and resale avoids patent...more

15 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