The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
How to Secure Advances to Fund Legal Fees
Legislative Update: Cannabis, COVID-19, COMAR and More
Let's Talk About How Much It Costs To Get Divorced
Employment Law and Attorney Fees from the Employee Perspective | Jason Smith | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Let's Talk Retaining a Family Law Lawyer
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
THE PAPER CHASE
VIDEO: Are PA Workers Compensation Attorney Fees Now Taken from Medical Benefits Too?
What Should I Do If My Employer Failed to Pay Me Wages?
6 Key Takeaways | Ethics Developments in California
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
Who pays attorney fees in a divorce proceeding?
SEC Whistleblower Program: What Employers Need to Know
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Must Disclose What Clients Pay
Bill on Bankruptcy: Stockton May Win the Battle, Lose the War
Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Appeal No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2024) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit helped clarify which facts may be...more
On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in...more
The law of patent eligibility was pretty quiet for decades until the Supreme Court breathed new life into Section 101 invalidity challenges in a series of decisions starting in 2010 with Bilski v. Kappos. In its current...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1484, -1485, -1518, -1519 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concisely affirmed an award of...more
CompanyCam moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint because the asserted '872 patent, titled "Device and Method for Embedding and Retrieving Information in Digital Images," was directed to ineligible subject matter. The U.S....more
When the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s award of attorney fees in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd. last month, we were reminded that, while a district court has wide latitude to...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-2054, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week features a new precedential decision dealing with the doctrine of...more
In another noteworthy year for patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit issued several decisions that altered the patent landscape, including three Supreme Court decisions. The topics of the key cases...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
Addressing patent eligibility at the motion to dismiss stage of a case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, finding that the district court improperly...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more
• In a precedential opinion in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's Section 101...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. GNC Corp., Appeal Nos. 2018-1657, 2018-1666 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019) - In an appeal from a district court decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Wallach, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Even if a patentee’s initial complaint was reasonable, the patentee can...more
Arctic Cat v. Bombardier deals with obviousness, patent marking, reasonable royalties, willfulness and enhanced damages. The panel affirms all of the district court’s rulings other than as to patent marking, which it remands...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
In Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., a district court recently held that a patent infringement case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the defendant was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs...more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present its 2016 Patent Litigation Year in Review. WSGR’s patent litigation practice is nationwide in scope and has received national recognition in recent years, with our...more
Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more
Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo - Why it matters: On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes...more
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more