DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
On remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board considered the petitioner’s reply arguments and evidence regarding the...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
Update: On January 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Janssen’s application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39099). On January 12, 2021, the Trial Judge issued the reconsideration decision, again finding the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - BioDelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019) - Our case of the week this week focuses on Section 314(d)—the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...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
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion concerning the patentability of proposed substitute...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moore, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In a product-by-process claim, terms that can be equally understood as structural or process...more
Core Wireless v. LG affirms the denial of summary judgment as to unpatentable subject matter, ruling that the asserted claims are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended...more
Previously, we reported the outcomes of remands from the Federal Circuit to the PTAB in IPR cases through 2016.... This note is an update to that report, surveying the outcomes and status of remands to the PTAB in the...more
On September 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the summary judgement that Abbott’s U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 (“the ’915 Patent”) was sufficiently supported by the written...more