Features

Supreme Court Limits Patent Liability for Component Makers in Global Supply Chain
<b><i>Life Technologies v. Promega</b></i><br>In a decision that should please American manufacturers that feed into the global supply chain, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted a 33-year-old law that imposes patent liability on components made in the U.S. for assembly overseas.
Features

How Much Did the Federal Circuit Narrow Eligibility for Covered Business Method Review?
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

Amending Patent Claims in Post-Grant Trial Proceedings
<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

Joint Infringement Post-Akamai: Understanding the Impact on Prosecution and Litigation Strategies<br><font size="-1"><b><i>Part 2: Decisions Since</i> Akamai <i>and Practice Insights</b></i></font>
Reviews the recent Federal Circuit <i>Eli Lilly</i> case as well as district court cases that have interpreted the new standard and identifies prosecution and litigation strategies for practicing post-<i>Akamai</i><p>
Features

Joint Infringement Post-Akamai: Understanding the Impact on Prosecution and Litigation Strategies
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

Design Patent Damage Awards
<b><i>Rotten for Apple</b></i><p>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.
Features

Supreme Court Rules on Design Patent Damages<br><i>Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc.</i>
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.
Features

<b><i>BREAKING NEWS</b></i><br>Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Blockbuster Patent Venue Case
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.
Features

<b><i>Online Extra</b></i><br>Apple Loses to Samsung in Supreme Court Design Patent Case
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

Expanded Means-Plus-Function Analysis Presents New Opportunities and Challenges
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.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- A Lawyer's System for Active ReadingActive reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.Read More ›
- The Brave New World of Cybersecurity Due Diligence in Mergers and Acquisitions: Pitfalls and OpportunitiesLike poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party.Read More ›
- The 'Sophisticated Insured' DefenseA majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.Read More ›
- Removing Restrictive Covenants In New YorkIn Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?Read More ›
- The New York Uniform Commercial Code Comes of AgeParties in large non-consumer transactions with no connection whatsoever to New York often choose its law to govern their transactions, and New York statutes permit them to do so. What most people do not know is that the New York Uniform Commercial Code is outdated.Read More ›