A Texas company has accused Snap Inc. of infringing four patents with systems that allow Snapchat users to scan "Snapcodes" and add friends on the popular social networking app.
Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement Decision Based on Prosecution Disclaimer<br>Federal Circuit Decisions Offer Guidance on Award of Attorney Fees under Section 285
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Impression Products v. Lexmark</i> is the latest Supreme Court ruling to eviscerate years-long, patentee-friendly Federal Circuit precedent.
Despite leaving unresolved the ambiguity about the effect of secret sales under §102, the <i>Helsinn</i> ruling offers clues to practitioners seeking to avoid the on-sale bar.
Although <i>TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods</i> answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
PTAB Did Not Deny Procedural Due Process By Adopting a Claim Construction not Offered by the Parties During IPR<br>USPTO Did Not Exceed Authority in Granting Inter Partes Reexamination after Requester Sought to Have It Denied
Starting in 2013, the USPTO has been requesting reimbursement for the time spent by its attorneys and paralegals on district court challenges to PTAB and TTAB decisions.
The landscape for patent law has changed more quickly over the last five years than it had in preceding decades. Recent cases have profoundly changed the way courts and the USPTO treat patents and patent applications. The U.S. Supreme Court will have ample opportunity, if it chooses, to revisit the issues that have been raised by these cases over the next few terms.
District Court's Decision Retroactively Excusing Failure to Mark Patented Products Vacated By Federal Circuit<br>Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Unpatentability Findings Made In an IPR Proceeding Despite Prior Judicial Opinions Upholding Validity
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
