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...more
5/16/2018
/ Contract Interpretation ,
Contract Negotiations ,
Ericsson ,
FRAND ,
Georgia Pacific ,
IP License ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
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...more
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
4/2/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Expert Testimony ,
IP License ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Smartphones ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
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,...more
12/8/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Last week, the Federal Circuit held computer memory system patent claims not abstract and thus patent-eligible under Section 101, reversing a lower court dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6). Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA...more
In recent years, software patents have come under fire from legislation (the American Invents Act) that has generally made patents easier to invalidate, and from court decisions (the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS...more
Over the course of the past year, there have been two notable decisions issued by the Federal Circuit and the International Trade Commission that impact the scope and nature of the remedies available for the infringement of...more
When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit...more
Earlier this week, Intellectual Ventures (IV) petitioned the full Federal Circuit to review the panel opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, which invalidated two of its patents under section 101. Both patents—the...more
Yesterday the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (here) that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously-conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not violate...more
On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more
10/5/2015
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Article III ,
eBay Test ,
Injunctive Relief ,
iPhone ,
Irreparable Harm ,
Nexus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Public Interest ,
Samsung ,
Standing ,
Vacated
Two weeks ago, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, writing on her own behalf, submitted comments in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation)...more
7/29/2015
/ Abuse of Dominance ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Edith Ramirez ,
Exclusion Orders ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
FRAND ,
Injunctive Relief ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
IP License ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Public Interest ,
Standard Essential Patents
Last week, in response to a request for a preliminary ruling by a German court hearing a patent infringement action brought by Huawei against ZTE, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) took up the question of...more
7/24/2015
/ Abuse of Dominance ,
EU ,
European Court of Justice (ECJ) ,
FRAND ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Remedies ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl. That year also is the source of nearly...more
5/6/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Attorney's Fees ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Software ,
Software Developers ,
Young Lawyers
On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.” Among other things, the bill would direct courts to award attorneys’ fees and litigation-related expenses to prevailing...more
3/16/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Innovation Act ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Prevailing Party ,
Proposed Legislation
Currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is Carnegie Mellon University’s (“CMU”) $1.535 billion judgment for patent infringement against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and Marvell...more
Administrative Law Judge Essex recently issued the public version of his Initial Determination in ITC investigation No. 337-TA-868, ruling that the respondents are precluded from relying on the defense that the patent holder...more
The Supreme Court yesterday issued its long-awaited decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International addressing the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions under 35 USC §101. The Court’s unanimous...more