In a 2-1 split decision on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB“) had the authority to reject substitute claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, statutory...more
In a Halloween decision, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al., an appeal from IPR2017-00275....more
B.E. Technology LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2356 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2019) identifies what it means to win in a case. More particularly, the Federal Circuit explained how to determine whether a party is “the...more
On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for certiorari filed by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe....more
In August of 2016, the Federal Circuit granted Aqua Products, Inc.’s (“Aqua Products”) petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the patent owner bears the burden of persuasion of patentability when amending...more
In a case pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, set to begin trial on June 12, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee following the Supreme Court’s decision in TC...more
The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more
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
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., addressed the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016), on the issue...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
10/13/2016
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Claim Construction ,
Corporate Counsel ,
En Banc Review ,
Mobile Devices ,
Motorola ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
Technology ,
Telecommunications ,
Teva v Sandoz ,
Young Lawyers
In a key development regarding Inter Partes Review (IPR) procedure, on September 1, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued an order that lays the groundwork for how the Board may address cases on remand...more
Following a recent hearing involving K&L Gates’ lawyers before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on behalf of the patent owner in an inter partes reexamination, several key practice tips emerged that may be useful as...more