The U.S. Supreme Court has so far agreed to hear one patent case during its new term, while pending petitions raise some intriguing patent issues, including the reach of inequitable conduct and constitutional challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are some patent cases to keep an eye on during the upcoming term.
Samsung doesn’t need to pay $115 million for ending an agreement to license TV patents from patent pool manager MPEG LA, a New York state appeals court ruled Thursday, reversing a lower court’s decision that the electronics giant had breached its contract.
HTC America Inc. urged a Texas federal court on Thursday to deny Ericsson Inc.'s bid to arbitrate claims that the Swedish telecommunications company overcharged for aging standard-essential patents, saying Ericsson waived its right to force arbitration of the dispute.
The Federal Circuit on Thursday made a handful of modifications to a July panel decision that vacated a $140 million jury verdict against Fairchild Semiconductor in a chip patent case brought by Power Integrations but declined to rehear the case as a full court.
Hewlett Packard Co. will pay a class of printer customers $1.5 million, not including attorneys' fees, to resolve allegations over phony error messages that popped up when users tried to install third-party ink cartridges, under a settlement proposed Tuesday in California federal court.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board revamped its procedures surrounding precedential decisions and clarified how panels of judges are chosen, changes the board said Thursday were part of an effort to improve transparency and predictability.
Motorola, HTC and BlackBerry urged the U.S. Supreme Court to keep in place a rule that allows patent co-owners to block one another's infringement claims by refusing to join the lawsuit, telling the high court that the rule protects patent owners from being pulled into expensive litigation against their will.
The Federal Circuit on Thursday kicked a challenge to a sprinkler patent back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review additional arguments the board had previously neglected, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year in SAS Institute that the board cannot pick and choose which contested patent claims to review.
CBS is asking the full Ninth Circuit to rethink a ruling last month that “remastered” versions of old recordings aren’t entitled to new copyrights, arguing the decision “overturned decades of law” on so-called derivative works.
A data security startup on Wednesday moved to disqualify the lawyers representing its ousted co-founder in a suit in California federal court accusing him of sharing trade secrets with technology giant Oracle Corp., saying the co-founder's attorneys had weaponized privileged documents he allegedly stole.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has found that Broadcom failed to show that TV maker Vizio and semiconductor maker Sigma Designs sold and imported products that infringed two patents on video coding and graphics technology, closing the book on a case that sought to bar imports of the companies’ products.
Morgan Stanley alleged Wednesday in Illinois federal court that six financial advisers who previously managed $660 million for the bank attempted to take confidential information and clients when they left for competitor Stifel Nicolaus & Co.
Groupon Inc. asked a Delaware federal court on Wednesday to toss what it claims was a "runaway jury verdict" awarding $82.5 million to IBM Corp. after finding Groupon infringed four e-commerce patents dating back to the early days of personal computing.
A Pennsylvania federal judge has found that UnitedHealthcare Services Inc. is bound by a $125 million antitrust settlement its outside counsel reached with Cephalon Inc., as the insurer had given every indication that its lawyers were in the clear to sign on its behalf and in-house counsel actively chose not to read or challenge the final agreement.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has once again refused to allow Nike Inc. to amend a footwear patent that was challenged by rival Adidas AG, in a decision Tuesday that prompted a debate among judges about the standard for determining what is a reasonable number of substitute claims.
Qualcomm has failed to convince a California federal judge to hasten proceedings on its effort to dust aside certain patent-related claims by Apple in the pair’s ongoing legal brawl, with the judge agreeing on Wednesday with Apple’s argument that “extreme expedited treatment” was not warranted.
Pfizer Inc. unit Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceuticals have fallen short in their bid to ax a proposed class action from end-payors alleging the companies engaged in a scheme to delay generic competition for antidepressant drug Effexor XR, with a New Jersey federal judge refusing to toss the case in its entirety.
The maker of a corkscrew pipe popularly used to smoke marijuana has accused Amazon in Massachusetts federal court of infringing a patent on the glass blunt known as Twisty by enabling third-party merchants to sell knockoff versions on the world's most popular retail website.
Calling a company a "patent troll" isn't defamatory, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued in an amicus brief filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, saying it's a form of rhetorical hyperbole.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other generic-drug companies challenging Allergan PLC patents for dry-eye medication Restasis urged the full Federal Circuit on Tuesday not to reconsider an earlier decision that tribal sovereign immunity doesn’t apply in reviews at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The Federal Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that a malware detection patent asserted against Palo Alto Networks Inc. is not obvious.
One year ago the U.S. Supreme Court issued a blockbuster ruling on where patent lawsuits can be filed. It was expected to shake up patent litigation in a big way. But did that happen? Here, Law360 takes a look at the impact the case had on the patent landscape.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two big patent rulings — upholding a system for challenging patents as constitutional, but finding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must decide the validity of every challenged claim when it agrees to institute those American Invents Act reviews. Here, Law360 looks at how we got here, what the court ruled, and how these decisions will impact practicing before the PTAB.
A Supreme Court ruling redrew the patent litigation map. The International Trade Commission became an ever more popular patent venue. District courts saw fewer cases. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board isn’t what it used to be. 2017 was a challenging year for patent attorneys.
Can hashtags be “locked down” the way that clients want? And is trademarking them worth it? Recent cases and direction from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are starting to outline the registrability and enforceability of hashtag trademarks, says Marc Misthal of Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman PC.
IBM recently partnered with the U.S. Open to offer tennis fans a digital experience. This type of deal offers numerous benefits, but companies seeking to leverage their innovative technology in exchange for sponsorship packages should be aware of certain legal issues, say Leon Medzhibovsky and Airina Rodrigues of DLA Piper.
The first comprehensive overhaul of California's Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 30 years becomes operational on Nov. 1. Some of the new rules mirror the model language used by the American Bar Association, but many continue to reflect California’s unique approach to certain ethical questions, says Mark Loeterman of Signature Resolution LLC.
As the cannabis market continues to grow, patent infringement suits will abound contingent on federal legalization. Some in the industry worry that many current cannabis patent claims are overbroad, but the availability of post-grant proceedings may provide a solution, say Tryn Stimart and Jean Dassie of Gibbons PC.
We analyzed the petitioning practice of the top five filers of inter partes review — Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft and LG — and it is clear that serial, overlapping petitions are commonplace at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, even by a single entity, say Steven Carlson and Ryan Schultz of Robins Kaplan LLP.
The balancing act between protecting attorneys’ speech rights and ensuring unbiased adjudications was highlighted recently in two cases — when Michael Cohen applied for a restraining order against Stephanie Clifford's attorney, and when Johnson & Johnson questioned whether a Missouri talc verdict was tainted by public statements from the plaintiffs' counsel, says Matthew Giardina of Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP.
On Thursday, the Federal Trade Commission began a series of hearings on competition and consumer protection in the 21st century. These events are an important first step in guiding enforcement priorities, says David Balto, a former policy director of the FTC Bureau of Competition.
In Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court ruled last month that a law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict with another current client did not categorically disentitle the firm from recovering fees. But the court didn’t provide hoped-for guidance on how to write an enforceable advance conflict waiver, says Richard Rosensweig of Goulston & Storrs PC.
In this monthly series, Amanda Brady of Major Lindsey & Africa interviews management from top law firms about the increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Melanie Green, chief client development officer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The Federal Circuit's decision last month in Maatita effectively eliminates the design patent requirement that drawings must enable a person of skill in the art to make and use the invention. The court failed to properly apply statutory standards, leading to an improper result, say Robert Anders of A Design Consultancy and Christopher Rourk of Jackson Walker LLP.