Federal Circuit Approves Apportioning Damages through a Thorough and Reliable Analysis of the Royalty Rate
February 15, 2018 | Blog | By Stephen J. Akerley, Philip C. Ducker
On January 12, 2018 in Exmark Manufacturing Co. Inc., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, the Federal Circuit once again addressed the issue of apportioning damages, an area of the law that continues to evolve. The parties in Exmark are competitors in the commercial lawn mower market.
February 14, 2018 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) appealed findings of no infringement made by the United District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appealed the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
February 5, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci, Chris Duerden
In Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (CACD January 22, 2018), the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion to award attorney fees due to Defendants’ exceptional litigation tactics under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
International Trade Commission Becomes Even More Potent Venue for Victims of Trade Secret Misappropriation
January 30, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nick Armington
Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those companies provide a commodity good.
January 30, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon
In an interesting order issued recently in BroadSign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Judge Swain of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
January 24, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Monique Winters Macek
When trying to overcome an obviousness rejection of a patent claim, an argument that two or more cited references cannot be combined may be used. For example, it can be argued that the combination is improper because the modification of a reference completely changes its “fundamental principle of operation.”
Damages Apportionment for Infringing A Method Claim When The Smallest Saleable Unit Performs Infringing and Non-Infringing Functions
January 22, 2018 | Blog | By Stephen J. Akerley, Philip C. Ducker
The Federal Circuit’s damages apportionment jurisprudence is an ever-evolving area of the law. On January 10, 2018, a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit revisited the issue in connection with a patent covering a method for providing computer security in the case Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom: en banc Federal Circuit Held The Time-Bar Determinations (§ 315(b)) Appealable
January 16, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Catherine Xu
In its first en banc decision of 2018, the Federal Circuit held that “judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s determination that the petitioner satisfied the timeliness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) governing the filing of petitions for inter partes review.”
January 2, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
In a recent development from the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne concluded that defendants Globalfoundries, Qualcomm, and Samsung waited too long prior to moving to dismiss or transfer the case due to improper venue.
December 28, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner
On December 19, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that the state of Minnesota waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to challenges to patent validity by inter partes review (IPR) by filing suit in federal court alleging infringement of the same patent being challenged by IPR.
December 19, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
Further to our ongoing coverage of the post-TC Heartland patent litigation landscape, a pair of recent and interesting cases from Texas and Delaware further evolved this important venue-related jurisprudence.
December 18, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski
In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize biosimilars applicants who fail to disclose information about their abbreviated Biologics License Applications (“aBLAs”) or manufacturing processes as required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A).
December 12, 2017 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Brad M Scheller, Inna Dahlin
On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal.
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Oil States Regarding Constitutional Challenge to Inter Partes Review
December 8, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Chris Duerden
We first covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017), a case with the potential to substantially alter the patent litigation landscape, back in June. On Monday, November 27, 2017 the Court heard oral arguments on whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) since September 16, 2012 to analyze the validity of existing patents – violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum and without a jury.
November 30, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Jinnie Reed
On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance on motions to amend based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Federal Circuit Evaluates Import of Factual Statements Made During BPCIA Pre-litigation Patent Dance
November 17, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski
In a nonprecedential opinion issued on November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that Apotex’s aBLAs for biosimilar versions of Neulasta® and Neupogen® did not infringe an Amgen protein folding patent.
November 17, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Chris Duerden
In June, we covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017). The Court will decide whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) since September 16, 2012 to analyze the validity of existing patents – violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
November 16, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller, Tiffany Knapp
In issuing its precedential decision earlier this month in Two-Way Media v. Comcast, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Delaware district court determination that four data streaming patents were directed to ineligible subject matter pursuant to § 101 and the Alice framework.
Federal Circuit Concludes that TC Heartland Was a Change in the Law, Reviving Venue Transfer Motions for Defendants Previously Held to Have Waived the Argument
November 16, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
On November 15, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolved a split among district courts on the question whether the United States Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision constituted a change in the law, or merely a course-correction to honor preexisting law.
Yahoo Asks Federal Circuit to Determine Whether TC Heartland Changed, or Merely Clarified, Venue Rules
November 10, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
In an interesting development in the post-TC Heartland world, it appears that the Federal Circuit will soon answer the question whether the Supreme Court’s venue decision was a change in the law, or merely a course-correction to honor preexisting law.
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