Given the pending change in administration and uncertainty around President-elect Trump's priorities on cybersecurity, an analysis of the current federal cyber landscape may yield insights into how the next administration might prioritize their approach on this important front.
Entertainment and intellectual property practitioners and businesses should take note of these changes, as they directly inform the manner in which these matters will be handled moving forward and could potentially affect outcomes.
This two-part article aims to deconstruct the new joint infringement standard, provide insight into how the standard might be interpreted and provide practice tips for prosecution and litigation. Part 1 chronicles the Akamai cases that ultimately resulted in a new standard for joint infringement and explores the potential interpretations of that standard.
Rotten for Apple
On Dec. 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, hearing its first design patent case in over 120 years, unanimously threw away a $400 million award that Apple won against Samsung Electronics. In doing so, the justices interpreted an 1887 statute providing that it is unlawful to manufacture or sell an "article of manufacture" that a patented design or colorable imitation has been applied.
On Dec. 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a damages award of $399 million that Apple won against Samsung in an ongoing design patent dispute.
Federal Circuit: PTAB Used Overly Broad CBM Patent Standard
Federal Circuit: PTAB Patent Invalidation Vacated over Erroneous Invention Conception Date
In a win for the tech industry, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 14 to hear a case that could move patent cases out of the Eastern District of Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Samsung Electronics on Dec. 6 in its titanic patent dispute with Apple Inc. over design features copied from Apple iPhones.
This article discusses disputes involving the use of copyrighted works or intellectual property underlying that work, under a license, or in one case, under an implied license. The parties thereto are not nearly as well-known, but the legal conclusions reached may have farther reaching implications.
The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online expanded the potential application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, making it more likely that functional claim language will be construed as a means-plus-function limitation even in the absence of the word "means." This article discusses recent decisions applying Williamson and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.
