Epistar Corp. v. International Trade Commission
Sometimes, the merger of two companies requires a sorting of the Cinderellas from the ugly stepsisters when it comes to pre-existing contractual relationships. The decision in Epistar Corp. v. International Trade Commission involves one such blended family tale. There, after a merger, the alleged infringer found itself with separate licensing agreements that both prohibited and allowed invalidity challenges...
Read More...
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
Trademark holders, start your engines! - Internet search engine that is. After the Second Circuit's decision in Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. , trademark holders may finally be able to go after entities like Google for trademark infringement. Don't race off to the courthouse just yet though. Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true (as required on the appeal of a 12(b)(6) motion)...
Read More...
Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Aluminart Products Ltd.
Is Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Aluminart Products Ltd. the end of what has been, for some, the classic patent game of asserting inequitable conduct? In an effort to stop one of the favorite pastimes of some accused infringers, the Federal Circuit in Larson puts a pox on lower courts' use of loose evidentiary inferences when considering claims of deceptive intent. It's too soon, however, to...
Read More...
Revolution Eyewear Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear Inc.
Who needs yoga when there's patent litigation? The Federal Circuit's decision in Revolution Eyewear Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear Inc. shows how holding on too tight can endanger the very thing to which one is attached. In Revolution Eyewear, the patent holder wouldn't release the right to claim patent infringement in the future even though it tried to conclude the litigation by offering a covenant...
Read More...
Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.
. . . It's who says it -- at least when it comes to patent attorneys offering expert testimony in an infringement case. In Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd . , the district court allowed a patent attorney to testify on issues of infringement and validity even though the attorney had no expertise in the technology covered by the patent. Reversing, the Federal Circuit said the evidentiary...
Read More...
Ricoh Co. Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.
We all like certainty - especially in the patent law. But Ricoh Co. Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc . offers anything but bright lines in discussing § 271(b) inducement and § 271(c) contributory infringement claims. In a divided decision, the Court instructs us that the totality and context of relevant circumstances is the touchstone with respect to indirect infringement. In Ricoh , the district court...
Read More...
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Beware the Curse of the Zombie Opinion-of-Counsel Letter! In re Seagate -- and the changes it made to the standard for willful infringement - seemed to kill off such creatures. Now, the Federal Circuit's decision in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc. , brings them back to life. Swirling out of the mists of the law of induced infringement, the Opinion-of-Counsel Letter has risen from its crypt, bringing...
Read More...
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.
After the most recent decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. , patent law may need a new word [1] to describe the specific consequences of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents while participating in a standards-setting organization ("SSO"). Such silence by the patent holder in Qualcomm -along with some genuinely shocking litigation shenanigans-resulted in the Federal Circuit...
Read More...
In re Bernard L. Bilski
The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in In re Bernard L. Bilski late last week, making clear that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. While theoretically leaving alive the prospect of valid business method patents, the Court made clear that unless a process claim is "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or "transforms a particular article into a...
Read More...
Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology
In Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology , the accused infringer thought they'd hit the jackpot by convincing the district court to hold a patent invalid due to "Improper Revival" during patent prosecution. The district court paid out on the defense and granted summary judgment on the defendant's behalf. On appeal, the Federal Circuit invoked house rules and...
Read More...
Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Death of lower court victories can be a side effect of appeals, so perhaps the accused patent infringer in Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. shouldn't have inhaled their district court win. RJR, the accused infringer, obtained an order for summary judgment in the district court based on the inequitable conduct of patent holder Star Scientific. On appeal, the Federal Circuit made...
Read More...
Jang v. Boston Scientific
Savvy travelers in the land of patent litigation occasionally use the stipulated judgment short-cut to speedy appellate review of the district court's claim construction. In order to have a final, appealable judgment, litigants on this usually expedited route agree that the accused products would or would not infringe (as the case may be) in light of the district court's claim construction...
Read More...
Proveris Scientific Corporation v. InnovaSystems, Inc.
In Proveris Scientific Corporation v. InnovaSystems, Inc. , the defendant sought to invoke the so called "Safe Harbor" provisions of 35 U.S.C §271(e) in order to avoid liability for patent infringement. The patent at issue covered a system and apparatus that allowed those seeking FDA approval to provide necessary data demonstrating the efficiency and effectiveness of drug delivery for drugs...
Read More...
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
Chopping block, that is, since the patent holder in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. had its verdict for willful patent infringement overturned and its $77 million damage award eliminated. Changes in controlling case law in the time between verdict and appeal contributed to the reversal; but bad expert testimony and a skimpy record on appeal also helped turn the district court's verdict into...
Read More...
Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.
Look at that! Look at that! Prong Two just stepped in on the mat-or, perhaps more precisely, it showed up in the Federal Circuit's decision in Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc. Specifically, in Cat Tech, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the changes the Supreme Court decision in MedImmune v. Genentech made to the first prong of the test for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in actions brought...
Read More...
More Posts
Next page »