Sometimes it is all about the money. In Motorola v. Hytera, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed “a large and blatant theft of trade secrets” from Motorola by its competitor Hytera. The damages awarded to Motorola,...more
A federal appeals court recently applied a U.S. trade secrets law to sales outside the country, finding that Motorola was entitled to $407 million in damages from a foreign competitor for trade secrets misappropriation. A...more
On May 11, 2024, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) celebrated its eight-year anniversary. The DTSA’s enactment in 2016 marked a turning point in US trade secret protection. It gave parties seeking redress for...more
This month’s ITC Wrap-Up reviews a recent investigation exploring exemptions to the Commission’s remedial orders. Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304, Final Determination (Dec. 18, 2023)....more
Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - UNILOC 2017 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2021-1498, 2021-1500, 2021-1501, 2021-1502, 2021-1503, 2021-1504, 2021-1505, 2021-1506, 2021-1507, 2021-1508, 2021-1509, 11/4/2022) (Lourie,...more
In a series of related cases, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two decisions from the US District Court for the District of Delaware regarding collateral estoppel on standing issues and reversed a...more
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Appeal Nos 2021-1555, -1795 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) - Our Case of the Week is ostensibly a case about whether a patent owner has standing to sue when that patent holder has...more
In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining...more
Two cases illustrate the narrow scope of application for exceptions to the without prejudice rule of legal privilege. Background - In two recent judgments, the High Court found exception to the ‘without prejudice’ rule...more
On March 5, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a final judgment on a jury verdict of approximately $764.6 million in a high profile trade secret misappropriation case — Motorola...more
Virtually all significant antitrust cases these days have an international component. Markets now are worldwide. Consequently, one of the most frequently litigated—and most important issues—is the extent of U.S. jurisdiction....more
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) published a 56-page “Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents” (“Guide”) on June 5, 2018. The Guide provides an overview of licensing negotiation processes and royalty...more
WHAT HAPPENED: ..Wading into the merging streams of antitrust and patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of an antitrust suit where a jury verdict in a parallel case found no patent...more
Addressing the issue of direct infringement in the context of a system claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Motorola’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, which...more
On Sept. 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit clarified the meaning of the term “use” as it applies to system claims in patent infringement actions. In doing so, the court held that an infringer...more
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
Almost a decade has elapsed since the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. altered the law of patent obviousness. In reversing the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Court in KSR limited the...more
On August 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals tightened the usage of common sense and in doing so clarified the criteria for applying it in an obviousness determination. Arendi S.A.R.L., Appellant v. Apple Inc.,...more
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more
All patent practitioners recognize that a single prior art reference can be used to reject claims in an obviousness rejection. However, the issue is whether the Patent Office must provide additional evidence, above and beyond...more
Covered Business Method Patent Review: What Constitutes a Financial Product or Service? Along with inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), the America Invents Act (AIA) created a transitional program for...more
Focusing on the Claims, the PTAB Denies CBM Review of a Market Research Patent - On April 13, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution...more
After Multiple CBM Petitions, Motorola Invalidates Software Patent - On March 21, 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in the Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review...more
M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-33 - RGA, February 25, 2016 - Andrews, J. Defendant’s motion to exclude damages experts’ testimony is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude opinions of...more