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.
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.
A California judge Wednesday struck a mid-trial blow to a startup alleging Hewlett Packard coerced it into providing tens of millions of dollars of extra software and services on a Malaysian project, ruling that an HP employee’s statements related to the case’s fraud claims aren’t admissible.
A New York federal judge has shot down Allergan Inc.’s “meritless” effort to eviscerate multidistrict litigation that alleges antitrust violations aimed at protecting dry-eye drug Restasis, saying it’s plausible that the company acted dishonestly to stymie generic competition.
A California federal court has disqualified Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP from representing a video doorbell company in a patent suit brought by a rival, ruling the firm received confidential information from the rival before the suit was filed.
Two songwriters who unsuccessfully sued Taylor Swift for copyright infringement over “Shake It Off” are taking their case to the Ninth Circuit, at one point quoting a judge who told the pop star to “be careful what you wish for.”
CloudFlare Inc. on Wednesday said it is entitled to $200,000 in attorneys' fees for defending against bad faith litigation full of "red flags," telling a California federal judge that the tech startup Swarmify Inc. kept pursuing its trade secrets claims even after it knew in February that it didn't have a case.
A desk maker in Texas on Tuesday said it has reached deals with several companies to end a U.S. International Trade Commission probe into its complaint that the companies, which are located in the U.S. and China, infringed patents for its standing desk platforms.
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted unanimously in favor of legislation that would make major changes to how streaming music services like Spotify pay royalties.
A D.C. federal judge on Tuesday sided with Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in its bid to block NASA from fulfilling a Freedom of Information Act request that the defense contractor had claimed would have exposed details about a subsidiary's contract and pricing practices.
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.
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.
Last year’s business-friendly amendment of Internal Revenue Code Section 168(k), which allows immediate expensing for certain business assets, left many questions. In August, the Department of Treasury proposed rules clarifying requirements for depreciable property, but not all solutions are permanent and many issues remain unresolved, say attorneys at Eversheds Sutherland LLP.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese products as a response to China’s trade practices concerning technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation. The U.S.-Chinese trade war highlights the need to approach investments in China differently, taking a broad view of intellectual assets and looking beyond basic legal protection, says Holly White, a consultant at Rouse & Co.
A California federal court's refusal last week to reconsider Davis v. Electronic Arts magnifies the manifest errors in its recent decision by ignoring the blatantly obvious identifiability of the former NFL players, says Ronald Katz of GCA Law Partners LLP.
Decisions granting extensions of 30-month stays under the Hatch-Waxman Act are infrequent and often not reported. This small body of cases provides helpful benchmarks for parties, say Jeffrey Lewis and Niki Ikahihifo-Bender of Norton Rose Fulbright.
A Delaware federal court's ruling in Amgen v. Hospira last month may indicate a significant narrowing of the patent infringement exception for activities related to obtaining drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, say attorneys at Paul Hastings LLP.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Applications in Internet Time v. RPX expansively interprets the term “real party in interest” and creates new hurdles for companies that ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to institute an inter partes or post-grant review, says Craig Countryman of Fish & Richardson PC.
Companies are heavily investing in artificial neural networks and implementing them into products and businesses. This technology provides a vivid illustration of some of the challenges in seeking intellectual property protection for artificial intelligence, say attorneys with Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.