Willfulness Finding in EDTX Ruling in TCL v. Ericsson Illustrates the Risk to Accused Infringers of Failing to Investigate Allegations
May 17, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Robert Moore
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief that it did not infringe the patent-in-suit or that the patent was invalid.
May 16, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Robert Moore
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused infringer bears the burden of production for royalty-stacking and other mitigatory arguments on damages.
Venue Cannot Be Bootstrapped to a Defendant that Only “Works Closely” with a Resident Corporate Relative Co-Defendant
May 15, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent case in the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer for improper venue. In doing so, it rejected the plaintiff’s contention that venue can be proper where one corporation “works closely” with another corporation resident in the jurisdiction.
May 11, 2018 | Blog | By Aarti Shah, Daniel Weinger, Tiffany Knapp
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) published the final changes to its rules of practice and procedure. The Commission stated that the changes are intended to both modernize and simplify Commission practice as well as to increase the speed and efficiency of investigations.
Post-Grant Review Chickens Come Home to Roost: The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Effect of Reexamination on Equitable Estoppel and Laches
May 9, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci, Chris Duerden
The Federal Circuit recently overturned a decision estopping the plaintiff from pursuing its infringement claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and clarified the effect of reexamination on equitable estoppel and laches.
May 4, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Sandra Badin, Inna Dahlin
As we noted in our blog post last week, the USPTO held its “Chat with the Chief on SAS” webinar on April 30, 2018, to advise the public on the implications of the Supreme Court’s opinion in SAS Institute for practice before the Board going forward.
Personalized Medicine Gets a Boost from Federal Circuit’s Vanda Pharma Decision – PART II: Enforcement
May 1, 2018 | Advisory | By Muriel M. Liberto, PhD, Esq., Jennifer Dereka
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda Pharm. Inc. v West-Ward Pharm. Intl. Ltd. (2016-2707, 2016-2708 April 13, 2018) provided some good news on the subject matter eligibility front for innovators and other stakeholders in the personalized medicine space, as discussed in a previous post.
International Trade Commission Clarifies the Intersection Between Litigation Funding Agreements and Standing
April 27, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan
On April 18, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that a litigation funding agreement destroyed standing for a complainant at the ITC.
April 27, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Sandra Badin, Chris Duerden, Anthony Faillaci
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important patent law opinions that relate to the inter partes review procedure introduced by the America Invents Act: Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, which upholds the constitutionality of inter partes review, and SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to adjudicate the validity all patent claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review if the Board decides to adjudicate the validity of any claim challenged in that petition.
April 25, 2018 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Joe Rutkowski
On April 16, 2018 in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma v. Emcure Pharms., Nos. 2017-1798, -1799, -1800, affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by construing the claimed chemical structure diagram to encompass at least the specific enantiomer depicted, refusing to limit the claim to only cover a racemic mixture of the (+) and (–) enantiomers, absent clear indication that the depicted enantiomer should be excluded from the claim.
April 17, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk
Led by Michael Renaud, Jim Wodarski, Mike McNamara, Bill Meunier, Aarti Shah, and Adam Rizk, the Mintz team secured an important victory for its client Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The case was filed against LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, and it involved complex graphics circuit technology.
April 6, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nick Armington
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently granted immunity under the whistleblower provision of the Defend Trade Secret Act in what appears to be the first decision of its kind under the new federal trade secret statute.
April 5, 2018 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Alexander Roan
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), § 271(b) (induced infringement), and § 271(c) (contributory infringement).
March 30, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger
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.
March 28, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent development from the Northern District of Illinois, the court granted counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc.: Whether Claim Elements Are Well-Known, Routine, or Conventional Is a Question of Fact
March 12, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Kevin Amendt
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that it was wrong for a judge to rule that a patent was ineligible under the Alice standard because there were underlying factual disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgement.
March 5, 2018 | Blog | By Stephen J. Akerley, Adrian Kwan
Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC, (“ATS”) appealed findings of invalidity for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
March 1, 2018 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Lily Zhang
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious.
February 22, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Alexander Roan
In an application of 2017 U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., the Northern District California in International Fruit Genetics LLC v. Orcharddepot.com, No. 4:17-cv-02905-JSW, recently denied a motion to dismiss a claim of patent infringement by holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply to a sale of a patented product that was outside the scope of the license granted by the patent owner.
Delaware District Court Finds No Work-Product or Common Legal Interest Protection for Certain Pre-Suit and Pre-Agreement Documents and Communications Between Patent Owner and Litigation Financing Company
February 21, 2018 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas
Recently, the District of Delaware held that a there was no work-product protection, and no common legal interest protection covering communications and documents shared between a patent owner and a third-party litigation financier, where the exchange occurred prior to any written agreement signed between the two parties and prior to the filing of any litigation.
Explore Other Viewpoints:
- Arbitration, Mediation & Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Bankruptcy & Restructuring
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Consumer Product Safety
- Debt Financing
- EB-5 Financing
- Education & Nonprofits
- Employment, Labor & Benefits
- Energy & Sustainability
- Environmental Enforcement Defense
- Environmental Law
- FDA Regulatory
- Federal Circuit Appeals
- Financial Institution Litigation
- Government Law
- Health Care
- Health Care Compliance, Fraud and Abuse, & Regulatory Counseling
- Health Care Enforcement & Investigations
- Health Care Transactions
- Health Information Privacy & Security
- IP Due Diligence
- IPRs & Other Post Grant Proceedings
- Insolvency & Creditor Rights Litigation
- Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
- Insurance & Financial Services
- Insurance Consulting & Risk Management
- Insurance and Reinsurance Problem-Solving & Dispute Resolution
- Intellectual Property
- Investment Funds
- Licensing & Technology Transactions
- Life Sciences
- Litigation & Investigations
- M&A Litigation
- ML Strategies
- Medicare, Medicaid and Commercial Coverage & Reimbursement
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling
- Privacy & Cybersecurity
- Private Client
- Private Equity
- Products Liability & Complex Tort
- Project Development & Finance
- Public Finance
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
- Real Estate, Construction & Infrastructure
- Retail & Consumer Products
- Securities & Capital Markets
- Securities Litigation
- Sports & Entertainment
- Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark & Copyright
- Trademark Litigation
- Venture Capital & Emerging Companies
- White Collar Defense & Government Investigations