Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Court of Appeals Reversals from a Criminal Perspective | Jim Huggler | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Failure to Obtain Advice of a Third Party Is Not Evidence of Willfulness - In Provisur Technologies, Inc., v. Weber, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1438, the Federal Circuit held that patentees cannot use an accused infringer’s failure...more
The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages....more
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1906 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated an approximately $2.2 billion damages award against appellant Intel...more
On December 4, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a $2.18 billion damage award against defendant Intel Corporation because it found plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC had erred on its damages calculation,...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
On August 3, 2020, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified its decision in TomTom v. Adolph regarding limiting claim preambles, holding that the preamble of the claim at issue could not be...more
A federal court in Wisconsin recently awarded Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. more than $5.4 million in damages, based on a patent infringement claim brought against Sorenson Communications and CaptionCalls...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: When the Federal Circuit holds that a combination of references...more
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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2106-2599 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018) In an appeal from a jury verdict and JMOLs in a patent infringement case, the...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) In a reissued, slightly altered version of a July 3, 2018 decision,...more
An introduction to § 271 - Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement. The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), §...more
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1118, -1202 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In an appeal from a jury trial, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision denying Oracle’s motion for JMOL and remanded...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more
In a 7-1 decision issued on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages in a patent...more
On February 14, 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman of the United States District Court, District of Oregon granted a Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice submitted by Plaintiffs Smith & Nephew, Inc. and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion reversed and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an award to Apple, Inc. of $399 million of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s total profits on...more
The Supreme Court of the United States handed Samsung a victory yesterday by reversing a $400 million judgment previously won by Apple for infringement of several of Apple's design patents. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court held in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. that Section 289 of the Patent Act does not demand that the entire, infringing end-user product be the basis for determining damages for design patent...more
Since their initial release, smartphones have been a hot commodity with intense competition. One particularly contentious issue has been their appearance. During early development, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) obtained several...more
Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting - On November 4, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal in Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA...more
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 14-1538, to resolve: “[w]hether a supplier can be held liable for providing ‘all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented...more
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding active inducement infringement under 35 USC § 271(f)(1) in a case important to US manufacturers...more