News & Analysis as of

Reversal Apple

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law

This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

And All That Jazz: Trademark Used for One Service Doesn’t Permit Tacking for Others

McDermott Will & Emery on

Reversing the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s decision to dismiss an opposition, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the requirements for a trademark owner to employ “tacking” based on the use of a mark...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Ninth Circuit Adheres to Precedent and Finds That Subverting Express Warranties Simply Does Not Compute

On May 19, 2022, in an unpublished decision, a Ninth Circuit panel reaffirmed that under California law manufacturers do not have a duty to disclose defects in their products that manifest after the expiration of the...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

White & Case LLP

EU General Court strikes a blow to Commission approach to fiscal State aids in the Apple tax case

White & Case LLP on

The General Court has upheld a challenge to a 2016 Commission decision that had required Ireland to recover €13.2 billion in illegal State aid from Apple, on account of alleged preferential tax treatment for the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Petitioner’s Reply Argument in IPR Is Not an Impermissible New Theory

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more

International Lawyers Network

When appealing bears fruit: Pear Technologies v EUIPO – Apple

Are apples different from pears? Or are they both just fruit? Or, as cockney rhyming slang would have it, are they stairs? These are the questions (excepting the last one) that the distinguished judges of the Court of Justice...more

Knobbe Martens

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: (1) To uphold a jury verdict of infringement, evidence must...more

Knobbe Martens

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: When resolving an obviousness challenge, the PTAB cannot invoke “ordinary creativity” of a skilled...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

The Decision To Grant Rehearing En Banc In Apple v. Samsung

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the ongoing patent litigations between Apple and Samsung that began in the Northern District of California. The district court had found at summary judgment...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2016

WilmerHale on

ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. (No. 2015-1565, 8/15/16) (Moore, Taranto, Hughes) - August 15, 2016 10:41 AM - Moore, J. Reversing summary judgment of invalidity of claims for lack of written...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - July 2016

Employer Is Entitled To Recover $4 Million In Attorney's Fees From EEOC - CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016) - The EEOC filed suit against CRST (a trucking company) alleging...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Now It’s Apple and Samsung: Patents, Rulings and Appeals

In a Federal Circuit decision handed down recently, the appeals court overturned a $120 million jury verdict awarded to Apple. Samsung prevailed in this, the third appeal in this litigation. Two of Apple’s patents were found...more

14 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