Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more
Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1441 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered, and rejected, new...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the long-standing presumption that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees—holding that the “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” provision of...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court...more
In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover attorneys’ fees against an applicant in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. An unsuccessful applicant for a patent has...more
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more
Under the so-called American Rule, litigants are normally expected to pay their own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute clearly permits or requires fee-shifting. In the underlying litigation in Peter v. NantKwest,...more
On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more
The Supreme Court held that the PTO cannot collect attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which requires challengers of PTAB decisions to pay all expenses of the proceedings....more
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in a civil action challenging an adverse decision by the PTO under...more
On December 11, the US Supreme Court held that the US Patent and Trademark Office is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to the Eastern District of Virgina from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and...more
On December 11, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous order in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that a statute allowing the USPTO to recover "expenses" for appeals of patent refusals to a district court does not allow the...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, holding that Section 145 of the Patent Act does not require dissatisfied patent applicants who file a civil action in...more
Affirming the district court’s summary judgment ruling on the protectability of the trademark BOOKING.COM, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit weighed in on the somewhat controversial issue of the genericness of a...more
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
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