3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Kidon IP War Stories – David Cohen & Dragos Vilau
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
What's New on China's Punitive Damages in IP Litigation?
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
Suppose you have a design for an ornamental appearance of an article and start producing the article. Subsequently, you receive notice from an owner of a design patent that you are infringing their patent. You conduct a prior...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review: Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC found a rule set file used by a network security program to be a...more
On June 12, 2024, the USPTO issued a final rule governing the pre-issuance circulation and review of decisions within the PTAB. This formalized current USPTO procedures within the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP4) adopted...more
The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more
On August 6, 2024, the PTAB issued its first written decision applying a new test for obviousness of design patents. In Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., IPR2024-00525, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024)...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is revolutionizing the way patents are enforced in Europe, and McDermott’s intellectual property team is here to help you navigate this dynamic landscape. Our Legal Lens on the Unified Patent...more
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
On December 1, 2023, Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. (“Intelligent”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) (“IPR256”), assigned to Downing Wellhead Equipment,...more
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 2023-1107 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Sept. 3, 2024). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Dyk and Stark. Broadband iTV sued Amazon for infringement of five patents directed to...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., No. 2023-1227 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Aug. 16, 2024). Opinion by Cecchi (sitting by designation), joined by Moore and Taranto....more
In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition...more
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
Koss filed a patent infringement suit against Bose asserting the ’155, ’934, and ’025 patents, after which Bose petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents before the PTAB. The district court case was stayed...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed-in-part and remanded-in-part the Board’s decision in the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 patent”), and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the cross...more
On July 9, 2024, Director Vidal reversed and remanded a denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) relating to three Spin Master patents. See Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR Nos. 2023-01339, 2023-01348,...more
Be an Expert: Precedential PTAB Decision on Conclusory Expert TestimonyStutti TilwaA recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on...more
A recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on expert declarations in their inter partes reviews (“IPR”). On August 24, 2022, the...more