On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - Minnesota Court Awards Octane Fitness $1.7 Million in Attorney Fees and Costs - In the seminal case establishing a lower standard for attorney fees in “exceptional” patent cases—Octane Fitness...more
Intellectual property litigation is expensive for both the plaintiff and defendant. However, because defendants are required to defend themselves in a lawsuit—in comparison to a plaintiff who has the choice to file and...more
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
Congress v SCtPatent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S....more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
There is a continued need for patent reform to address the asymmetrical costs that patent litigation imposes on defendants. Given the substantial costs imposed on U.S. technology companies by the number of suits brought by...more
A recent case in the District of Connecticut demonstrates that courts may be more willing to award attorneys’ fees to a small plaintiff, encouraging such a plaintiff to protect its patent when it is the plaintiff’s “primary...more
Fee-shifting in patent infringement suits has been authorized by statute since 1952, for application in “exceptional cases.” For the past nine years, that statute has not often been applied as a result of the Federal...more
In April, the Supreme Court reshaped the patent litigation landscape with its Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark, Inc v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., rulings. The statute at issue in both...more
Efforts by the U.S. Senate to pass an alternative to the Innovation Act, which aims to reform abusive patent litigation, have stalled. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is leading the effort, has announced that his committee is tabling...more
Two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2014 may have an impact on the “patent trolls” debate by changing the rules relating to the award of attorney fees to a winning party in litigation relating to patent...more
The recent Octane Fitness and Highmark, Inc. opinions, both authored by Justice Sotomayor after unanimous holdings by the United States Supreme Court, were a welcome development for corporate defendants in patent infringement...more
In 2013, the Supreme Court decided three patent cases. By June of 2014, it is expected that there will have been six more decisions in patent cases. This week alone, there have been oral arguments heard or decisions released...more
In this issue: - Special Report: US Supreme Court Will Decide Key IP Cases in 2014 - Patent Litigation: Strategies to Battle NPEs: Lessons from the Front Lines - Design Patents: The Federal Circuit...more
The Supreme Court issued decisions in two cases yesterday that will make it easier for defendants to seek sanctions against non-practicing entities or any other entity for abusive patent litigation. In Highmark Inc. v....more
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court delivered much-anticipated decisions in the Octane and Highmark cases and redefined the framework for determining whether a patent lawsuit is “exceptional,” justifying an award of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court rendered two decisions yesterday that should help curb meritless “patent troll” litigation. The decisions are particularly helpful to technology companies and large retail businesses that frequently...more
In light of these decisions, patentees with weak cases may think twice about filing, now that they face a credible risk of having to pay defendants’ attorney fees. By the same token, accused infringers with questionable...more
In two unanimous decisions handed down yesterday, the United States Supreme Court has offered some encouragement to defendants who choose to litigate against so-called patent trolls that the cost of doing so may be...more
On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions that could curtail abusive patent practices implemented by "patent trolls" or non-practicing entities (NPE) by relaxing the legal standards for awarding...more
In two closely watched cases, the Supreme Court yesterday issued its opinions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1184) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc....more
On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its highly anticipated decisions in a pair of cases governing the award of attorney fees in patent infringement lawsuits. In the two cases, the Court tossed out the Federal...more