News & Analysis as of

Samsung Patents

IPR Updates

by Goodwin on

The PTAB remains a busy venue for biologics patents. Here are some IPR updates from the weeks since our last IPR update...more

Apple and Samsung Are Headed Back to the Court Room

Following a lengthy and extensive litigation that began in 2011 that culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016, smartphone industry titans Apple and Samsung will again find themselves in Federal District...more

Consider Others’ Denied IPR Petitions Before Filing Your Own Follow-On Petition

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, Case No. IPR2017-01305 (P.T.A.B. October 17, 2017). - Last month, we wrote about the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

CAFC Finds Another PTAB Claim Construction Unreasonable and Again Reverses an Invalidity Holding

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

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

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings which upheld the patentability of claims due to construction of the claim term "is...more

Federal Circuit Remands Novel Issue on Patent Marking Requirement

by BakerHostetler on

On April 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated an award of more than $15 million in damages because a plaintiff’s licensee failed to mark patented articles. Rembrandt Wireless...more

Failure of Licensee to Mark May Upend $15.7 Million Damage Award

In Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics CO., LTD., [2016-1729] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL),...more

UK Court Invalidates AbbVie HUMIRA Patents

by Goodwin on

On Friday March 3, 2016, in a decision in cases brought by Samsung Bioepsis UK Ltd. and Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co. Ltd., a U.K. court held invalid two European patents owned by Abbvie that purportedly cover Humira®...more

Apple v. Samsung: The Parties Weigh in on Next Steps

On Tuesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its first opinion in a design patent case in more than 120 years. In the long-running smartphone saga between Apple and Samsung, the issue before the...more

A Defendant’s Understanding of Infringement Contentions Is Not Enough To Comply With The Patent Local Rules

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

Order Granting Motion to Strike, Staying Discovery, and Granting Leave to Amend, GeoVector Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Case No. 16-cv02463-WHO (Judge William H. Orrick) - Albert Einstein once noted: “Any...more

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more

Design Patents – The Forgotten Protection

The use of design patents to protect a new product is frequently overlooked. The public only becomes aware of design patents whenever the rare blockbuster jury verdict arises such as Apple’s verdict over Samsung over iPhone...more

Intellectual Property Law - December 2016

Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more

Supreme Court Signals Shift in Approach to Damages in Design Patent Infringement Cases

by K&L Gates LLP on

In its first design patent case in over a century, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, reversed a damages award Apple Inc. (“Apple”) had won over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) in their protracted...more

For Design Patent Damages 'Article of Manufacture’ Not Necessarily Entire End Product

by McDermott Will & Emery on

A unanimous US Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include either the end product sold to the consumer or...more

Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in Design Patent Case with Samsung, Remands to Federal Circuit to Formulate Test for Identifying...

by Mintz Levin on

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that...more

Samsung Versus Apple in the Design Patent Wars: The Supreme Court Strikes Back – And Punts

In a December 6, 2016 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the latest decision in the long-running war over smartphones between industry and cultural titans, Apple and Samsung. While many might have hoped for a clarifying...more

Supreme Court Reverses Apple’s $400 Million Damage Award Against Samsung

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, that an award of total profits for infringing a design patent need not be calculated based only on the end product sold to an...more

The Sum of the Parts ? the Whole? SCOTUS on Samsung v Apple

by Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a $400 million damages award against Samsung for infringing Apple's smartphone design patents. In a decision that upsets a long-standing rule for calculating damages for design...more

Supreme Court Changes Standard for Determining Damages for Design Patent Infringement

by Burr & Forman on

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) - In the closely-watched Samsung v. Apple case, the Supreme Court today issued a landmark ruling that changed the long-standing rule for calculating damages for...more

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

by 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

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

by K&L Gates LLP on

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

US Biosimilar Pathway Update

Six years after the biosimilar pathway was enacted into law, FDA has approved three biosimilars for marketing in the US. Sandoz’s Zarxio, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen, was the first biosimilar to be approved. Zarxio, a...more

The Smart Phone Patent Saga Continues - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a case involving suits, countersuits and multiple appeals by the two giants of the mobile phone space, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding of infringement, voiding the accompanying...more

83 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.