Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.
Features
Venue in patent cases lies "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in <i>TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods</i>. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
Features
<b><i>Split Federal Circuit Declined to Reconsider Panel's Decision that Lost Profits Based on the</i> Panduit <i>Factors Are Fully Apportioned</b></i><p>On Sept. 1, 2017, a split Federal Circuit declined to rehear a panel decision in <i>Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.</i>, a case that could have significant implications for lost profit damages and apportionment.
Features
<b><i>Strategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation</b></i><p>With the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Alice</i>, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.