Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Supreme Court Ends Laches Defense in Patent Cases Image

Supreme Court Ends Laches Defense in Patent Cases

Scott Graham

<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

Supreme Court Limits Patent Liability for Component Makers in Global Supply Chain Image

Supreme Court Limits Patent Liability for Component Makers in Global Supply Chain

Scott Graham

<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? Image

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

Diek Van Nort & Matthew Kreeger

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 Image

Amending Patent Claims in Post-Grant Trial Proceedings

Cynthia Lambert Hardman

<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> Image

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>

Matthew Becker, Norman F. Hainer Jr. & David K. Ludwig

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 Image

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

Matthew Becker, Norman F. Hainer Jr. & David K. Ludwig

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 Image

Design Patent Damage Awards

John S. Artz, Franklin M. Smith & Brandon L. Debus

<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> Image

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

Brendan Mee & Nathan Renov

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 Image

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

Jan Wolfe

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 Image

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

Tony Mauro

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.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
    “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.
    Read More ›
  • Private Equity Valuation: A Significant Decision
    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.
    Read More ›