Less than two years after joining Bingham McCutchen LLP, a partner specializing in intellectual property and is moving to Maynard Cooper & Gale PC’s San Francisco office in the firm's technology and IP practices amidst continuing merger discussions between Bingham and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed dueling objections to each other's bill of costs in a case over smartphone and digital photo patents that yielded a roughly $120 million jury verdict in May, with both companies claiming to be the prevailing parties on various aspects of the litigation.
In Law360's latest roundup of new actions at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Levi Strauss & Co. has "500" reasons to oppose a trademark, the group behind "Birthright Israel" aims to shut down a registration for another country's similarly named heritage trips, and Nike tells another company to Just Not Do It.
Nokia Corp. on Friday backed Apple Inc.'s push for an injunction on Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. smartphones found to infringe Apple's patents, telling the Federal Circuit a lower court's denial of the injunction will create "unprecedented and unfair burdens" on patent owners.
A New Jersey federal judge on Thursday dismissed antitrust claims brought by indirect buyers of Lipitor in multidistrict litigation alleging Pfizer Inc. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. entered an anti-competitive patent infringement settlement, ruling the buyers' suit, like a previously dismissed direct-purchaser suit, fails to state a claim.
The federal government urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday not to review a rule barring royalty agreements that extend beyond the expiration of a patent, saying that the inventor of a Spider-Man toy challenging the rule has failed to explain why the court should discard decades of precedent.
Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca AB hit Actavis Inc with a suit in Delaware federal court Friday, to halt the sale of a generic version of a diabetes drug that AstraZeneca claims is still patent-protected.
Celgard LLC on Thursday sought to block a General Motors Co. bid to disqualify its Jones Day lawyers in an infringement suit, contending that, like Apple Inc.’s DQ bid before it, the carmaker had failed to show how its law firm’s representation of the battery maker was directly adverse.
Paul Hastings LLP has snagged a former White & Case LLP partner for its corporate practice in London, an addition the firm said will bolster its intellectual property, antitrust, technology and privacy-related practices in the U.K.
ProLogic Inc. on Thursday attacked a former employee’s bid to slash breach of contract claims from a $25 million suit in Maryland federal court accusing him of working with ProLogic’s ex-subcontractor Aquarian Systems Inc. to steal its software trade secrets and wrest away a U.S. Department of State contract.
A Florida federal judge Friday tossed a complaint lodged by Cavern City Tours Ltd. against Hard Rock Cafe International, which it accused of fraudulently obtaining the trademark for the Cavern Club, saying the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that the Hard Rock had intended to commit fraud.
A consumer group that was barred by the Federal Circuit from challenging a University of Wisconsin-Madison stem cell patent asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to review the ruling, saying the appeals court's finding that it lacks standing "violates fundamental fairness and plain common sense."
There continues to be deep confusion concerning remedies, in particular the calculation of damages, in patent law. This is especially challenging in the case of patents that claim only part of a multicomponent product — a typical scenario in core innovation markets, says Jonathan Barnett of the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law.
The New York attorney general has urged a federal judge to block Actavis PLC from pulling its widely used dementia drug Namenda from the market until the office's antitrust suit concludes, while the drugmaker countered that the standards required for an injunction have not been met.
Several intellectual property academics and a medical device association urged the Federal Circuit to rethink its decision to invalidate two patents and elimiante a $30.5 million verdict against Google Inc. and others, claiming that the court should mull how much deference to give juries in such cases.
A California federal judge voiced skepticism Thursday over Adobe Systems Inc.'s request for enhanced damages in a lawsuit accusing Wowza Media Systems LLC of infringing Flash encryption patents, saying Thursday that he didn't think Wowza executives' hacking of Adobe's software was enough to prove willful infringement.
A Delaware federal judge invalidated part of a DNA technology patent Genetic Technologies Ltd. accused Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and a Sanofi-Aventis SA unit of infringing because it merely described a natural law, dooming the claim under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Mayo v. Prometheus decision.
Merck KGaA unit EMD Millipore Corp. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider its decision that rival AllPure Technologies Inc. didn't infringe a device patent for withdrawing fluid from a container, saying Wednesday that the panel’s decision was contrary to “well-settled law” on prosecution history estoppel.
The Federal Circuit on Wednesday consolidated two appeals by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in its $930 million patent-infringement fight with Apple Inc., one disputing a judgment for damages stemming from a jury’s infringement verdict and the other challenging $1.9 million in court costs.
Coupons.com Inc. won’t have to fork over $6.7 million in royalties to Document Security Systems Inc. now that a New York federal judge granted the company summary judgment Tuesday in a battle over the use of counterfeit coupon detection technology.
There is confusion regarding the right of publicity because so many courts disagree with one another. That lack of consensus has deepened with a recent Minnesota federal court's decision in Dryer v. National Football League, which differs in important respects from a 2010 opinion from that same court, says Ronald Katz of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.
Four months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Since then, patent challengers have routinely and successfully invalidated claims under Section 101 by applying Alice. The decision could prove to be a significant weapon against software and business method patents, says Brian McCall of Merchant & Gould PC.
Large companies may tend to gravitate toward post-grant review, inter partes review or litigation for challenges to competitor's patents, but the relative cost of third-party submissions of art should be appealing to all potential challengers, say Sherry Murphy and Shawna Lemon of Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec PA.
While many of the changes in the latest European Patent Office guidelines reflect the current practice of the EPO’s boards of appeal, they also suggest that the first-instance departments of the EPO may be moving toward a less rigid and formalistic approach to some issues, say Philip Cupitt and Hazel Ford of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.
As our legal system evolves and we understand more about how an effective court system should function, the role of alternative dispute resolution should also shift. For example, the growth of e-discovery — and the ballooning associated costs — has further pushed the special-master trend, say former U.S. Magistrate Judge John Hughes and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Maria Sypek of JAMS.
Limiting validity challenges to novelty or obviousness in inter partes reviews is a significant drawback to petitioners. One possible way of skirting this restriction, in certain circumstances, may be to challenge the priority claim of a patent, say attorneys with Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
The delay at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office continues to be quite long, but fortunately the USPTO offers four options that allow most every patent applicant to significantly advance the pace of patent prosecution. While each of these programs has specific requirements for entry, those requirements are within the control of the applicant, say Rory Pheiffer and Lauren Ingegneri of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP.
After Parrish v. Latham & Watkins LLP, non-California arguments or authority might not simply be rejected regarding trade secret misapporpriation — now, depending on the outcome on rehearing, a failure to appreciate state-specific nuances might be considered frivolous or even bad faith, says Laura Smolowe of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.
As conscientious professionals who are required to address problems with notoriously elusive dimensions, lawyers should consider securing second opinions in a much wider array of circumstances than has been the norm, says Judge Wayne Brazil, a neutrual with JAMS and former magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Not surprisingly, it took a while before the first petitions for post-grant review were filed, but LaRose Industries LLC and Toys “R” Us-Delaware Inc. filed in August, and Accord Healthcare Inc. filed in September. If one or both petitions are granted, one question will be whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will be able to issue a decision within the mandatory 12-18 months, says Lisa Mueller of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP.