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

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

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

<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

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

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

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.