News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership Patent Infringement Standing

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

Irwin IP LLP

Who Really Owns Your Patent?  You or Your Bank?

Irwin IP LLP on

Intell. Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) On May 1, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of Intellectual Tech’s (“IT’s”) patent infringement claims against Zebra...more

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

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC

Dear Patenticity: Infringed and Weighing a C&D Letter

Dear Patenticity, We recently found that an out-of-state competitor is infringing one of our patents.  I know we need to put a stop to it, but I’m worried about the cease-and-desist letter.  I heard that there was a recent...more

Troutman Pepper

Federal Circuit Review - Issue 278

Troutman Pepper on

278-1. Federal Circuit Remands Patent Infringement Case to Answer Patent Ownership and License to Practice Questions - The Federal Circuit recently vacated a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent,...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Lack of Co-ownership for Terminally Disclaimed Patents May Doom a Lawsuit and Result in an Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Can lack of co-ownership for a terminally disclaimed patent render your otherwise well-founded infringement lawsuit baseless, requiring you to pay your adversary’s attorneys’ fees? At present, the answer may depend on the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars

In two decisions recently designated as “precedential,” the PTAB rejected two theories raised by petitioners for why the service of a complaint should not trigger Section 315(b)’s one-year time bar for filing a petition. In...more

Jones Day

IPR Time Bar Triggered Even If Party Serving Complaint Lacks Standing

Jones Day on

The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court Must Consider Joining Patent Owner Prior to Dismissal Where Licensee Lacks Substantial Rights to Bring Suit, but...

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California when it failed to consider joining the patent owner before dismissing a case in which the licensee possessed...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Substance Over Labels: Establishing Standing in Patent Infringement Suits - Intellectual Property News

The Federal Circuit’s decision last week in Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Technology Corporation, et al. (in addition to previous decisions from the court on this issue) emphasizes exactly how fact-specific the...more

Knobbe Martens

Rule 19 Joinder Provisions Are Not Optional

Knobbe Martens on

LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS v. NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION - Before O’Malley, Reyna, Chen. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary: When a patent assignee does not acquire all substantial rights in...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - June 2019

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Technology Corporation, Appeal No. 2018-1581, -1582 (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2019) - In the only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit...more

Jones Day

POP: Does a Complaint Without Standing Trigger The IRP Time Bar?

Jones Day on

The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will consider, at the behest of 360Heros, whether a complaint alleging patent infringement made by a party other than the patent owner of the patent triggers the § 315(b) time bar....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2099, -2100, -2101, -2332, -2333, -2334 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

International Trade Commission Clarifies the Intersection Between Litigation Funding Agreements and Standing

On April 18, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that a litigation funding agreement destroyed standing for a complainant at the ITC. In Certain Audio...more

Knobbe Martens

Raniere v. Microsoft Corporation

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Summary: When a case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing,...more

Jones Day

Owning the Patent Isn’t Always Enough for Standing

Jones Day on

In a recent Initial Determination (“ID”), Administrative Law Judge Lord ruled that a patent owner did not have standing to sue without joining a third party to which certain rights had been transferred. Certain Audio...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Unenforceability Due to Client Failure to Correct Counsel’s Misrepresentations to PTO - The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps...

In the ongoing saga between two manufacturers of liners for prosthetic limbs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a finding of inequitable conduct committed by the patent owner while the patent at issue...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Rule 11 Sanctions Are Rare and Reserved for the Most Egregious of Violations - Predator Int’l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed an order sanctioning an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding the attorney’s tactical...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Inventorship, Ownership Issues Cause Dismissal of Suit

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On July 22, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a long standing patent infringement suit brought by StemCells, Inc. against Neuralstem, Inc., on the ground that all those with an ownership...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Enforce Patent When Co-Owner Refuses to Participate in Litigation

STC.UNM v. Intel Corp. - Addressing whether standing and joinder are matters dictated by substantive patent law or by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a...more

23 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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