Features

In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of instituting review on only a subset of an <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) petitioner's validity challenges.

Features

<b><i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</b></i><p>Is <i>inter partes</i> review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in <i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</i> and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.

Columns & Departments

Federal Circuit Holds USPTO Can Defend PTAB Decision After Original Petitioner Drops Out<br>Federal Circuit Says <i>Alice</i> Not Intervening Change

Features

On March 27, 2018, in <i>Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC</i>, the Federal Circuit overturned a jury verdict in favor of Google from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In doing so, the court revived Oracle's claim that Google's use of Oracle's open-source Java language code did not constitute “fair use.”

Features

<b><i>Despite Possibility of 'Chaos,' Presumption Against Extraterritorial Application May Give Way to Simple Proximate Cause Test, Justices Suggest</b></i><p>The U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be mulling a flexible test for foreign patent damages last month, with the categorical presumption against extraterritoriality taking a back seat.

Columns & Departments

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Declaratory-Judgment Action Based Under Rule Against Piecemeal Adjudication<br>Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement Finding Despite Defendant's Discovery Violation

Features

<b><i>Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs &amp; Stratton Power Products Group, LLC</b></i><p>The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the <i>Georgia-Pacific</i> factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.

Columns & Departments

Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents<br>Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101