Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court did not appear eager to upset the patent litigation landscape by drastically limiting where infringement lawsuits can be filed.
Features
<b><i>SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products</i></b><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 ruled laches is not a defense to patent infringement suits that are brought within the Patent Act's limitations period.
Features
<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
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
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.