Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those for improper venue. It also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions filed under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those filed under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) for improper venue. In re: HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit further closed a potential venue loophole created by TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514, and clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants. In re: HTC, at 1357.
By Jonathan Moskin
NantKwest v Iancu
The Federal Circuit sitting en banc reversed its own prior ruling and held that “all expenses of the proceeding” does not include attorneys’ fees.
By Lawrence H. Aaronson and James L. Korenchan
Advances in UI Design Can Provide Key Competitive Differentiation and Advantage, Which Makes Protecting Them Critically Important from a Business Perspective
Advances in UI design can also provide key competitive differentiation and advantage, helping to distinguish otherwise commoditized products and services such as computers, Web services, wearables, and appliances. Given this advantage, protecting advances in UI design can also be critically important from a business perspective.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit Remands for Further Proceedings to Determine Whether RPX’s Petitions for IPR Were Time Barred For Failing to Identify Its Client As a ‘Real Party in Interest’
Federal Circuit Holds that Common Law Tribal Sovereign Immunity Cannot Shield a Patent in IPR Proceedings,br> Federal Circuit Holds that an Unsuccessful IPR Petitioner Must Show ‘Concrete Plans’ for Future Potentially-Infringing Activity in Order to Demonstrate Article III Standing to Appeal PTAB’s IPR Decision
By Elizabeth B. Hagan
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(2). The holding in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical rejects the Federal Circuit’s categorical exclusion of lost profits damages for foreign sales, and expands the potential for increased damages from domestic competitors operating in foreign markets.