News & Analysis as of

Smartphones Patents Patent Litigation

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Reverses Ineligibility Finding on POV Cameras and Processing

BakerHostetler on

On September 9, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding by the District Court for the Northern District of California that point-of-view camera claims were ineligible. ...more

Fish & Richardson

EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up – December 2020

Fish & Richardson on

This post summarizes some of the significant developments in the Northern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas for the month of December 2020. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP (E.D....more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Strategy Lessons From Wells Fargo Fintech Patent Litigation

United States Automobile Association (USAA) is a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families. On June 7, 2018,...more

Stinson LLP

Mobile Check Deposit Patent Case Headed for Trial

Stinson LLP on

Companies involved in mobile checking should watch case closely - The United States Automobile Association (USAA) owns a portfolio of patents aimed at mobile check deposit technology. One group of these patents is targeted...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Texas Court Declares Licensing Offer Based on End Device Is FRAND, Diverges from California Court in Qualcomm

Standard-essential patent holders and implementers may face uncertainty regarding licensing practices following a May 23 Texas court ruling. In the ruling, a Texas federal judge reached a conclusion different from a recent...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Intellectual Property - Patents - The World in U.S. Courts: Winter 2019

Taiwanese Manufacturer of Smartphones Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas in Patent Infringement Case Because of its Allegedly Purposeful Efforts to Serve the US Market, Even Though all US Distribution was Orchestrated...more

McDermott Will & Emery

District Court: IPR Policy Does Not Automatically Require License Fees Based on Components

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that for the purposes of honoring a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitment, a pool member is not required to base royalties for its standard...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

USAA Fighting To Protect Cloud-Based Check Depositing Assets Against Competitors

Over the years USAA has aggressively asserted its patent portfolio related to check depositing. Specifically, USAA holds itself out as an innovator in the research and development of allowing banking customers to deposit...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Apple V. Samsung

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On May 24, 2018, we received the third (trial) installment in the seven year legal battle between Apple and Samsung over the design of smart phones and related devices. At issue on this go-round was a retrial solely directed...more

Hogan Lovells

Huawei v. Samsung — A new benchmark for standard essential patent litigation in China?

Hogan Lovells on

China has become a new battlefield in the global patent war amongst tech giants in the telecom industry. On 4 January 2018, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (“Court“) rendered a landmark judgment in the Huawei v....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Smartphone Wars – The Last Jury: Samsung Owes $539M for Infringing Apple’s Patents

California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took...more

Jones Day

Jury Dials Up Record-Setting Damages Verdict for Design Patent Infringement

Jones Day on

On May 24, 2018, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California awarded Apple over $533 million in damages for Samsung's infringement of three Apple design patents covering portions of Apple's...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Damages: How Many Essential Features in a Smart Phone?

On March 20, 2018, the public version of Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy Payne’s March 7, 2018 order tossing a $75 million jury verdict obtained by Ericsson against TCL Communication was released. Ericsson...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Apple v. Samsung: What Does it Really Mean for Consumer Product Companies?

In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

IP Law December Developments: What to Expect in the Future

December has been a hot month for IP law, with important developments in several cases that may significantly impact your intellectual property prosecution and enforcement strategies. Here is a brief summary of each of these...more

McDermott Will & Emery

For Design Patent Damages, “Article of Manufacture” Not Necessarily Entire End Product

McDermott Will & Emery on

Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 USC § 289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

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

K&L Gates LLP

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

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

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

Mintz

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

Mintz 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

Ballard Spahr LLP

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

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

Burr & Forman

Supreme Court Changes Standard for Determining Damages for Design Patent Infringement

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

K&L Gates LLP

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

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

35 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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