The Buzz, An Economic Development Podcast | Episode 86: Thomas Komaromi
Episode 117 -- FCPA Update: Samsung FCPA Settlement; Braskem Former CEO Indicted; Transport CEO Convicted after Trial
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC [OPINION] (2024-1936, 12/20/2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes) - Prost, J. The...more
On January 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir.), affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling that “a published patent...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Jan. 14, 2025, in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., that published U.S. patent applications may continue to be used as prior art in inter partes...more
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
On May 10, 2023, a PTAB Panel excused the late filings of the Patent Owner and allowed over thirty exhibits and a Corrected Patent Owner Response (“CPOR”) to be submitted into the record in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v....more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Newman, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The forum selection clause in the parties'...more
On February 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) invalidation of a video compression patent challenged by Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”). The Court examined two issues:...more
“Printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is typically construed to encompass any type of document, as long as the document is “publicly accessible.” See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....more
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00860 (February 7, 2020) (Paper No. 15). Samsung filed two IPR petitions against NuCurrent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,680,960, which related to a multi-layer-multi-turn...more
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Priusa Engineering Corp., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020). Samsung filed an IPR petition against claims 1-4, 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 owned by Priusa....more
Cybersecurity in China remains a hot topic. The Cyber Security Law is already in place but the question is how this law is going to be interpreted and implemented. In this edition, we will look at various draft/trial measures...more
In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the meaning of terms used in challenged claims of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the claim language and the specification. The...more