Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent owners that prevail in an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation can significantly disrupt the business of the opposing party. On a finding for the patent owner, the ITC issues an exclusion order, preventing the opposing party from importing the infringing products into the United States. But as shown in the recent ITC determination in Certain Audio Players and Controllers (Inv. No. 337-TA-1191), proving non-infringing redesigns can mitigate the disruptive effects of such an exclusion order. This article provides an overview of redesigns at the ITC, a discussion of the ITC’s recent determination in Certain Audio Players and Controllers, and identifies some considerations to keep in mind when litigating redesigns at the ITC.
*May exclude premium content
By Darren M. Franklin
When deciding whether to apply for patent protection on an innovation or whether to keep the innovation confidential as a company trade secret, there are many considerations that a business must take into account stemming from the different characteristics of each.
By Cameron B. Pick
The “metaverse” in conjunction with Web 3.0 can be thought of as an immersive virtual reality world or worlds, where users can play games, socialize,…
By Ben Thompson and Robert Moorman
Trademark publication can be an anxious part of the application process, with fear of aggressive opposition and costly proceedings looming in the background. But many oppositions, whether they are only threatened or actually filed, afford the applicant a discussion with the opposer that can ultimately be helpful in nonobvious ways.
By Jeff Ginsberg and Zhiqiang Liu
Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims
Federal Circuit Rejects District Court’s Claim Construction As Being Too Narrow
Federal Circuit Rejects District Court’s Claim Construction Because It Is Not Supported by the Intrinsic Evidence, and Leaves Dependent Claims Without Scope