News & Analysis as of

Section 337 Patent Litigation Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Irwin IP LLP

Paws vs. Jaws: Dawgs Take on Crocs in The Federal Circuit

Irwin IP LLP on

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00605 (Fed. Cir. October 3, 2024) - On October 3, 2024, the Federal Circuit held that a party may be liable for false advertising violations under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021: How The Board is Weighing the Fintiv Factors - A Tale of Three Petitions

We have seen that decisions to institute an inter partes review (IPR) when the challenged patent is part of a parallel proceeding have become rare recently in light of the Fintiv factors. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries

Alston & Bird on

A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

Jones Day

Court Blocks Stay Request Absent Agreement to Estoppel for Third-Party IPRs

Jones Day on

The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently denied Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.’s motion to stay litigation pending resolution of parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before...more

Jones Day

ITC Provides a Way to Work Around IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

In In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1058 (ITC October 2, 2018, Order), Administrative Law Judge Cheney ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

ALJ Cheney Holds that IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to ITC Investigative Staff

In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Is the International Trade Commission the Most Patent-Friendly Venue with a Complainant Success Rate Near 90%?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

There are many advantages to pursuing relief for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC) compared to U.S. district court, but one that receives little attention is the success rate for complainants...more

Jones Day

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo@ITC

Interplay Between Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and ITC Section 337 Proceedings

Since the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011, Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have assumed growing importance in patent litigation in federal district courts. ...more

Jones Day

ITC Proceedings Do Not Trigger One Year Clock to File IPR

Jones Day on

Increasing use of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) by patent stakeholders and an increase in the number of ITC complaints heighten the importance of an interplay between IPRs and ITC proceedings. We have previously noted that the...more

Goodwin

Section 337 Actions at the ITC: another forum for pharma and biosimilars litigation?

Goodwin on

With the growing volume of biosimilar and pharma litigation in district courts and before the PTAB, the U.S. International Trade Commission may emerge as another forum for patent holders against imported biosimilars. Section...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Hot Topics: AIA Estoppel Provisions Clarified

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., has shed some light on the estoppel provisions in America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings. Like the estoppels in...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - June 2016

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - March 2016

WilmerHale on

Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC (No. 2015-1999, 3/31/16) (Prost, Moore, Wallach) - Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents related to storage compartment for pickup trucks. The Court rejected...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

An Invalidity Argument Without a Home? The PTAB's Discretion to Ignore Grounds for Invalidity

Foley & Lardner LLP on

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & George C. Beck The post-grant proceedings established by the America Invents Act – inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM) review, and post-grant review (PGR) –promise faster,...more

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update – October 2014 #2

King & Spalding on

Appellee Commission and Intervenor Cross Match Submit Briefs Supporting Overturning Federal Circuit Split Panel Decision in Suprema – On October 15, 2014, Appellee Commission filed an En Banc Brief and Intervenor Cross Match...more

20 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