A unanimous eight-member California federal jury held Thursday that Samsung owes Apple Inc. $538.6 million for infringing design and utility patents covering smartphone technology in a landmark patent case that made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Players associations for the major sports leagues urged Indiana's high court on Friday to find that state publicity laws bar two daily fantasy sports operators from using players' names and likenesses without consent, in a case likely to echo far and wide after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to legalized sports betting nationwide.
Two former employees of a New York group of Italian restaurants and wine bars that is suing them for trademark claims under the Lanham Act have urged an Illinois federal court not to close their new Chicago wine bar, arguing the startup’s design and menu are not "copycat" versions that violate the group’s trade dress.
A Louisiana federal judge has refused to toss a New Orleans jazz musician's copyright suit against hip-hop act Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, finding the Big Easy artist sufficiently pled substantial similarities between his works and those of the duo, including their hit "Thrift Shop."
The Federal Circuit revived a $5.4 million verdict against a manufacturer of captioned phones that a Wisconsin federal jury found infringed the asserted claims of a patent covering the devices, holding Friday that a judge erred in tossing the jury’s determination that the patent was valid.
An Indiana federal judge Thursday awarded the National Collegiate Athletic Association more than $220,000 in attorneys' fees for a default win in a trademark suit against a game developer.
Natera Inc. on Thursday asked a California federal court to free it from patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Illumina Inc., arguing the fetal DNA testing technology at issue isn’t patent eligible because it covers naturally occurring phenomena.
Trademark attorneys had hoped that a Ninth Circuit ruling in Adidas’ lawsuit against Skechers might clear up recent uncertainty about how to win a preliminary injunction, but experts say the decision has left plenty up in the air.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted Hasbro a trademark registration for the smell of Play-Doh, the toy giant announced Friday.
An Illinois federal magistrate judge rejected Motorola’s bid to examine the computers of workers at a Chinese radio manufacturer in a trade secret battle, saying the discovery had gone far afield of the statutes of limitation question it was meant to address.
In this week’s round of intellectual property attorney moves, Dechert landed a pair of partners who help life sciences companies build up their patent portfolios and litigate disputes, Katten Muchin hired a powerhouse trio of patent partners with pharmaceutical know-how, and K&L Gates snagged a former Jones Day partner with expertise litigating copyright and advertising cases. Here are the details.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday named and shamed drugmakers suspected of impeding lower-cost generics by withholding product samples, a splashy move that could jolt Congress into taking action.
Electronic Arts Inc. urged a California federal judge Thursday to end allegations it improperly used retired NFL players’ likenesses in Madden video games, or to at least deny the players’ bid for class certification, saying that after years of discovery, they have no proof their avatars are identifiable “other than their say-so.”
A California federal judge Thursday wouldn’t bar Google from disputing the validity of Space Data Corp.’s patent claims in litigation accusing Google of stealing its balloon-based internet technology, rejecting Space Data’s argument that a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision blocks the challenge.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday ordered Quinn Emanuel attorneys representing Samsung to provide the flight itinerary and boarding pass of a witness they suddenly dropped after Apple rested its case in a billion-dollar California patent damages trial, saying she wants to see if they're "playing games." A trial between Apple and Samsung played out all week in a San Jose courtroom, closing Friday. Here's one of our top-read stories on the proceedings from this week.
Emerson Electric told a skeptical California federal judge Thursday it wants former co-defendant Facebook to disclose its confidential deal to exit BladeRoom Group Ltd.’s trade secret suit, saying any financial settlement could offset the $30 million a jury said it owes BladeRoom.
Amgen told a D.C. Circuit panel Thursday that it’s entitled to extra exclusivity protection for its lucrative calcium-control drug Sensipar because it fulfilled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s request to study the drug's possible uses in children, only to have the FDA reject the research based on artificially high standards.
A California federal judge on Wednesday struck an architect’s sixth try to allege Google stole his building design technology trade secrets, one day after she said she was “surprised” at the amended complaint given pending dismissal motions before her.
An internet ad placement company has asked a Texas federal judge to disqualify an attorney representing a rival in a $2.3 million suit over click fraud, saying the attorney had shared information the company designated as for outside attorneys' eyes only.
The operator of New Orleans’ historic St. Roch Market has asked a Louisiana federal court to reject the city's bid to stop it from using the service mark outside the city, such as in Miami and Chicago, arguing New Orleans has never used the mark in commerce but only leases the building with the market’s name.
In this monthly series, legal recruiters at Major Lindsey & Africa interview management from top law firms about navigating an increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Toby Brown, chief practice management officer at Perkins Coie LLP.
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.
After a three-year surge, patent suits at the Federal Circuit leveled off last year as the court showed signs of adjusting to its bustling workload. The judges found time to write more opinions, and they reached greater consensus, penning fewer separate concurrences and dissents than in 2016.
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.
How can we stop fake versions of products from circulating throughout China? The answer might come from the internet of things and the Quick Response code, say Amy Hsiao of Swanson and Bratschun LLC and Samuel Speed of Yingke Law Firm.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's SAS Institute decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board outlined immediate changes. But the decision may also lead to an increase in denials of inter partes review petitions, an increase in IPR petitions filed, an increase in district court litigation stays, greater risk of estoppel, and/or an increase in appeals of PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit, say Justin Philpott and Eric Zelepugas of Banner & Witcoff Ltd.
There are general rules for preparing witnesses for deposition. But what if the witness is a lawyer for a party in the case? In the Waymo v. Uber litigation, we — Uber’s counsel — had to make many tactical decisions when preparing four lawyers for deposition and trial, say Arturo González and Michelle Yang of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
An Illinois federal judge's recent decision in Medix Staffing Solutions v. Dumrauf marks a departure from the weight of authority in the state that would traditionally allow development of a factual record before finding a noncompetition covenant overbroad, say Dan Fazio and Shane Blackstone of Winston & Strawn LLP.
In SAS Institute v. Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the practice that allowed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review with respect to fewer than all of the challenged claims. This will cause fundamental changes to IPR practice and increase overall costs of IPR trials, says Michael Fleming, of counsel at Irell & Manella LLP and former chief administrative patent judge of the PTAB.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week in Oil States v. Greene’s settles only the Article III constitutional challenge to inter partes reviews, and one particular paragraph in the majority opinion reads like an invitation for future petitions, say attorneys with Haug Partners LLP.
An Alabama federal court recently ruled that it is per se anti-competitive for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association to grant licenses to member plans to use trademarks in exclusive geographic markets. If upheld, this decision represents a significant threat to the fundamental structure of the association, says Robert Craig of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
Artificial intelligence is playing a growing role in the product development, marketing and sales strategies of fashion designers and retailers. This revolution brings uncertainty in the areas of trade secret protection, traditional intellectual property rights and privacy law, say William Forni of Calvin Klein, and Ben Quarmby and Daniel Michaeli of MoloLamken LLP.
In the age of e-commerce, counterfeit cosmetics present a growing challenge — not only do they pose significant health risks to consumers, but they raise serious legal concerns for brand manufacturers, distributors and retailers, say Aliza Karetnick and Kelly Bonner of Duane Morris LLP.
In WesternGeco v. Ion, the government and WesternGeco argued that proximate cause and foreseeability should determine the limits of recoverable patent damages, based on congressional intent and statutory language. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely apply the extraterritoriality framework set forth in the 2016 RJR decision, say Jerry Selinger and Grant Davis of Patterson & Sheridan LLP.