Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it's not clear yet who's supposed to be listening.
Features
Although <i>TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods</i> answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
Features
In November of last year, the Federal Circuit narrowed the types of patents eligible for covered business method review in <i>Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.</i> The court's decision narrowed what patents are eligible for CBM review, and provided some guidance for future cases.
Features
<b><i>What You Need to Know</i></b><br>The America Invents Act gave patent owners the right to move to amend their patent claims. To date, however, this right has been more illusory than real. Given their dismal success rate so far, many hope that the tide will turn in favor of granting more motions to amend.
Features
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 <i>Akamai</i> cases that ultimately resulted in a new standard for joint infringement and explores the potential interpretations of that standard.
Features
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.
Features
The Federal Circuit's <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Williamson v. Citrix Online</i> 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 <i>Williamson</i> and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.
