Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. __ (May 30, 2017), is the latest Supreme Court ruling to eviscerate years-long, patentee-friendly Federal Circuit precedent. Issuing less than one week after its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ____ (May 22, 2017) — in which the Supreme Court wiped out 27 years of Federal Circuit precedent by holding that a corporation “resides” for patent litigation venue purposes only in its state of incorporation â€” the Supreme Court’s Impression Products decision further reins in the ability of patent owners to enforce their patent rights by holding that patent exhaustion precludes a patentee from using patent law to enforce post-sale restrictions on products sold by a patentee. (Note: For more on TC Heartland, see, “Supreme Court Turns Back Clock on Venue in Patent Infringement Litigation.”)
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.
By Jon Bachand and Ari Feinstein
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a question raised by Helsinn Healthcare: whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.
By James A. Trigg and Chris Bussert
Supreme Court Grants Cert to Resolve Circuit Split on Registration Prerequisite for Filing Suit under Copyright Act
Although the term “registration” as used in the Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act does not immediately appear to be ambiguous, courts have reached differing conclusions as to its meaning.
By Howard Shire and Adam Fisher
Federal Circuit Holds That Tribal Sovereign Immunity Cannot Be Asserted in IPR Proceedings
Citing ‘Steep Burden’ on Plaintiffs, Federal Circuit Denies Use of ‘Entire Market Value Rule’ in Cases Involving Multicomponent Products