District Court's Decision Retroactively Excusing Failure to Mark Patented Products Vacated By Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Unpatentability Findings Made In an IPR Proceeding Despite Prior Judicial Opinions Upholding Validity
The U.S. Supreme Court did not appear eager to upset the patent litigation landscape by drastically limiting where infringement lawsuits can be filed.
SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products
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.
Life Technologies v. Promega
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.
In November of last year, the Federal Circuit narrowed the types of patents eligible for covered business method review in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc. The court's decision narrowed what patents are eligible for CBM review, and provided some guidance for future cases.
What You Need to Know
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.
Reviews the recent Federal Circuit Eli Lilly case as well as district court cases that have interpreted the new standard and identifies prosecution and litigation strategies for practicing post-Akamai
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 Akamai cases that ultimately resulted in a new standard for joint infringement and explores the potential interpretations of that standard.
Rotten for Apple
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.
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.
