The Briefing: Shedding Light on ‘Willful Blindness’: Brandy Melville v Redbubble
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Appellate courts issued a variety of notable intellectual property (IP) cases in 2024, including cases touching on Orange Book listings, extraterritoriality, willful infringement, design patent obviousness, and public...more
On June 6, 2024, Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (“Waydoo”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“the ’044 Patent”) (“IPR998”), assigned to MHL Custom, Inc. (“MHL”)....more
Sixty-seven patent infringement trials reached a jury verdict in 2024. Of these 67 patent infringement verdicts, thirty-one (approximately 46%) were a complete patent owner win on all patent infringement and validity issues. ...more
The tests for willful and indirect (both inducement and contributory) patent infringement require a finding by the court that the alleged infringer had prior knowledge of infringement of the at-issue patent....more
On November 12, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Lutron Electronics Co.’s motion for sanctions against plaintiff Geigtech East Bay LLC, and precluded Geigtech from presenting any theory of damages on retrial...more
The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages....more
Our Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for July 2024 covers three decisions of interest from the Eastern District of Texas granting motions related to subject matter eligibility, stays pending inter partes review (IPR),...more
This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more
On December 1, 2023, Judge Gary R. Brown (E.D.N.Y.) awarded Plaintiff Dynamite Marketing, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) fees and costs, declined to enhance damages, granted a permanent injunction against future infringement, and denied...more
In a recent decision in a patent case between massage-device companies, Judge Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) adopted two recommendations of the magistrate judge. The first R&R recommended denial of Defendant Tzumi’s motion for partial...more
On Sept. 14, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences Inc.’s (Parse) motion to dismiss a complaint filed by plaintiffs 10x Genomics Inc. (10x) and the Board of Trustees of...more
Power Probe Grp., Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corp., 21-cv-00332 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2023) While it is accepted that filing an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint rendering it without legal effect, a defendant...more
On June 1, 2023, the new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) will open its doors, and enforcement of European patents in (currently) 17 contract member states will be possible with one action. This series of articles –...more
On April 25, 2023, Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against AstraZeneca related to AstraZeneca’s anti-PD-L1 antibody product, IMFINZI (durvalumab), alleging willful infringement of...more
If the scope of the IPR estoppel statute has been keeping you up at night, our latest case of the (recent) week might help you sleep a little better because it provides clarity on two aspects of the statute’s reach. ...more
March's Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up covers decisions addressing post-verdict JMOL, the point at which cases become exceptional, and the standard for amending invalidity contentions, among other issues....more
The Texas patent litigation monthly update for January 2023 summarizes one patent decision that issued from the Western District of Texas. This decision is one of the first Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss granted in a patent...more
Litigants accused of willful patent infringement sometimes rely on an "advice of counsel" defense. Interestingly, courts have recognized a distinction between such a defense in the privilege and the work product contexts....more
On October 5, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying-in-part a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement, holding that requisite knowledge of the asserted...more
Kilpatrick Townsend Partner Paul Haughey recently presented "Patent Opinions - New Developments and Pitfalls." These are the 6 key takeaways from his presentation....more
Claims With Clerical Errors Can Be Judicially Corrected and Willfully Infringed - In Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Appeal No. 21-1834, the Federal Circuit held that a court can correct obvious...more
Kilpatrick Townsend partner Paul Haughey recently presented to the IP section of the Utah Bar Association about “Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls.” The presentation was a review of patent opinion basics,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision correcting a clerical error in a claim. Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Case Nos. 21-1834 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2022)...more
PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. Before: Lourie, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: A court can correct obvious minor...more
This post continues our summary of substantive orders in patent litigation in the District of Minnesota. This summary includes discovery relevant to willfulness findings, stays under the customer suit exception, and...more