News & Analysis as of

Cisco Patent Infringement Patents

Womble Bond Dickinson

Federal Circuit Reversal in Assignment Clause Case Highlights Importance of Contract Language in Intellectual Property Ownership

Womble Bond Dickinson on

In a split opinion issued Tuesday, and based on language in an assignment clause of a contract, the Federal Circuit overturned a district court's summary judgment that Core Optical lacked standing to sue Nokia, Cisco, and...more

Haug Partners LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Willful Infringement Standard and Provides Insights on Conduct That is Exceptional in SRI v. Cisco

Haug Partners LLP on

The Federal Circuit in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 20-1685, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 28, 2021) addressed the standards for willful infringement and enhanced damages, and provided insights on litigation tactics...more

Knobbe Martens

Willful Infringement Does Not Require “Wanton, Malicious, and Bad-Faith” Behavior

Knobbe Martens on

SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Applying the proper test for willful...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Cisco Ordered to Pay Over $1 Billion in Enhanced Damages for Willful Infringement

In Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia directed Cisco Systems to pay $1.9 billion after the company lost a patent suit brought by Centripetal...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

User Manuals, Reverse Engineering Reports, and Other Commercial Documents: When Are They Publicly Accessible?

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, Paper 40, at 23 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board clarified how a reference tied to a commercial product could qualify as a “printed...more

Troutman Pepper

PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential

Troutman Pepper on

The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The Restoration of (Bad) Faith: The Proper Standard for a Factual Finding of Willful Infringement

Enhanced Damages Under the Patent Act - The Patent Act provides that once infringement has been established, a district court may “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

A Post-Halo World: Companies Need to Be Careful Because Juries Determine Willful Patent Infringement

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), relaxed the standard for a finding of willful patent infringement under 35 USC Section 284. The “objective...more

Hogan Lovells

U.S. + Germany Patent Newsletter

Hogan Lovells on

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of IPRs, Requires PTAB to Decide Validity of All Challenged Claims - Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group & SAS Institute v. Iancu (24 April 2018)....more

Jones Day

No Stay of Remedial Orders Even After PTAB Finds Claims Unpatentable

Jones Day on

The ITC has dealt a significant blow to the use of Inter Partes Review as a defense to a Section 337 investigation. In an order issued this week, the Commission denied a request to stay remedial orders that are currently on...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

ITC Denies Suspension or Temporary Rescission of Remedial Orders after PTAB Invalidates Patents at Issue

In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No....more

Jones Day

Final Written Decision Not So Final in Eyes of The ITC

Jones Day on

The ITC recently continued its trend of giving little deference to parallel PTAB IPR proceedings. In Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, the ITC denied a request to...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB Invalidates Two Cisco Patents Found Valid and Infringed at the ITC

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

IP Law December Developments: What to Expect in the Future

December has been a hot month for IP law, with important developments in several cases that may significantly impact your intellectual property prosecution and enforcement strategies. Here is a brief summary of each of these...more

Morris James LLP

Declaratory Judgment Action Is Dismissed For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Morris James LLP on

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. This is a declaratory judgment action. Defendant has asserted infringement against various customers of plaintiff on their...more

King & Spalding

Intellectual Property Newsletter - July - August 2015

King & Spalding on

Protecting Trade Secrets in the Era of the Data Breach - The prevalence of data breaches cannot be ignored. New data breaches continue to occur one after an-other. In the first half of 2015 alone there were reports of...more

Mintz

Commil USA V. Cisco Systems: “I thought it was legal” is no defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)

Mintz on

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Supreme Court Moves to Clarify Induced Infringement Standard

In its most recent pronouncement on patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court once again corrected the Federal Circuit’s understanding of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). On May 26, 2015, in Commil USA, LLC v....more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court: Good Faith Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is No Defense to Induced Patent Infringement

In a sharply divided opinion, the Supreme Court has determined that a party may be liable for inducing the infringement of a patent even if it has a good faith belief that the patent is invalid. The decision, Commil USA, LLC...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Litigation Alert: A Good-Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Inducement of Infringement

Fenwick & West LLP on

Six justices of the Supreme Court agree that an accused indirect infringer’s good faith belief in invalidity of a patent “will not negate the scienter required under §271(b).” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896,...more

Akerman LLP

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Further Clarifies the Requisite Intent for Induced Infringement after Global-Tech

Akerman LLP on

On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. that an alleged infringer's belief regarding patent validity cannot be used as evidence in a defense to an induced infringement claim. In so...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court on Induced Infringement: Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Not a Defense and Knowledge of Infringement Required

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a 6-2 decision this week, the United States Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015) held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Defense to Claims of Inducement of Patent Infringement

Foley Hoag LLP on

The Decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. - On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a party’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to a claim that the party has...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #5

SUPREME COURT CASES - Invalidity is not a Defense to Infringement but a Defense to Liability - This week, on May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. that a defendant’s...more

Mintz

Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is Not a Defense to Inducement Liability

Mintz on

The Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. on Tuesday holding that a patent infringement defendant’s good faith belief that the patent in suit is invalid is not a defense...more

37 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide