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
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. IOENGINE, LLC V. VIDAL (21-1227 Lourie, Chen, Stoll) - Chen, J. The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on petition for writ of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order and remanded the transfer to be considered under the clarified parameters of Fed. R. Civ. P....more
APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Notice letters and related...more
In a procedurally complicated case involving allegations of both utility and design patent infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court’s piecemeal approach to a design patent...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. (No. 2018-1276, 12/14/18) (Prost, Dyk, Moore) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. “[W]e caution future litigants to tread...more