Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
Being sued for patent infringement in the U.S. can be confusing, especially for foreign companies with limited litigation experience. Even more confusing are the multiple options and venues available for responding to patent...more
The Federal Circuit has issued an opinion on the burden of proof for establishing estoppel in a case involving an inter partes review (IPR) petition. The case is Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp....more
The Federal Circuit recently held, for the first time, that patent owners bear the burden of proof for an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Estoppel affirmative defense that an alleged infringer failed to include prior art in a...more
Forward - In order to strengthen the protection of patent rights and try to solve the problems of "long cycle, difficult evidence production and low compensation", the cases of applying the obstruction of evidence...more
APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Notice letters and related...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
By Memorandum Order entered by the Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Vertigo Media, Inc. et al. v. Earbuds Inc., Civil Action No. 21-120-MN (D.Del. October 14, 2021), the Court denied plaintiffs Vertigo Media, Inc. and Remote...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...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
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-510-LPS (D.Del. March 25, 2021) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motions to...more
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, there has been increased litigation over appropriate venue in patent litigation, including Hatch-Waxman cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that venue in patent infringement...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
Recently, in Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No 19-2041 (July 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of $3.5 million in pre-suit damages and vacated the trial court’s...more
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more
The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward: Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing...more
On November 20, 2019, the Federal Court (FC) issued its reconsideration decision on the quantum of damages owed by Apotex for its infringement of eight Eli Lilly process patents related to the antibiotic cefaclor: Eli Lilly...more
On December 11, 2019, the PTAB designated two additional decisions as “informative.” Such informative decisions are not binding on subsequent panels, but are meant to provide guidance on recurring issues encountered by PTAB...more
Freshub, an emerging Smart Kitchen Commerce technology company that supports IoT based in-home grocery shopping, recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon (Amazon.com, Amazon Digital Services, Prime Now,...more
On November 23, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) allowed in part Apotex’s appeal of a decision awarding Eli Lilly over $100 million for Apotex’s infringement of eight process patents related to the antibiotic cefaclor:...more
IPR Petitioner’s Initial Identification of the Real Parties in Interest Is to Be Accepted Unless and Until Disputed by a Patent Owner - In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583, the Federal...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
On May 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re: ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, held that Federal circuit law governs the burden of proof for venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and...more