Almost two-thirds of Europe's patent infringement cases are lodged in Germany, where the losing side has to pay and injunctions are granted as of right, the first stop on Law360's look at prominent patent jurisdictions around the globe.
The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Monday largely handed Apple Inc. and Fitbit Inc. a win in their effort to invalidate a heart rate sensor patent owned by Valencell Inc., finding all but three of 13 claims unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art.
CookieCon founder Karen's Cookies has dropped its infringement lawsuit in Utah federal court against two California event groups it had accused of misusing its trademark, saying the parties have settled the dispute.
Litigation funder Therium Group Holdings Ltd. said Monday that it has brought on board a former Hogan Lovells partner for its investment team, bolstering its New York offerings with her experience handling complex commercial litigation and arbitration, particularly related to technology.
An Illinois federal judge tripled a jury’s $105 million award to $315 million Tuesday, following the panel’s verdict for Shuffle Tech LLC and three other companies who accused Scientific Games Corp. of initiating sham litigation to assert invalid patents and keep its automatic card-shuffler competition out of the market.
The government asked a California federal judge to disqualify Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, which is representing a former Fitbit Inc. employee accused of stealing trade secrets from another previous employer, Jawbone, saying that the firm's previous representation of other defendants in the case presents a conflict of interest.
The Texas Retailers Association filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Monday, urging a Texas federal judge to revisit an earlier court's “stale” ruling concerning the release of certain data about participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program now that online retailers can participate in the program.
The Florida Bar has filed a formal complaint for reciprocal discipline against a South Florida patent attorney who was suspended for eight months before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for allegedly mishandling and abandoning a client's patent application.
In a 2-1 decision Monday, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel declined to review Apple’s challenge to a Uniloc patent related to technology for connecting telephones and computers, which the nonpracticing entity has asserted against the tech giant in one of several infringement cases it initially launched in Eastern Texas.
A film producer has settled his claims with Walt Disney and The Weinstein Co. in a dispute over the rights to make a spinoff and sequel to the 1984 cult Hollywood horror film “Children of the Corn,” according to court documents filed in California federal court Monday.
Gucci America Inc. argued Friday in California federal court it is entitled to a jury trial to prove that Forever 21 Inc. infringed the trademark rights to its triple-stripe design, pointing to a “mountain of evidence” that the fast-fashion company intentionally created knockoff garments.
The next stop in Law360’s look at prominent patent jurisdictions is the United Kingdom, a highly regarded venue among patent owners, where courts have specialized judges, discovery is streamlined and the winning side can recover most of its costs.
Shuffle Tech LLC’s counsel urged a federal jury Monday not to buy into the idea that its CEO is a “loser and a liar” when it comes to his company, saying he is actually a victim and Scientific Games Corp.'s characterization was “just the arrogance of a monopolist and their attorneys.”
Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH on Monday earned a second chance at accessing confidential discovery materials the company claims are needed to fight trade secrets allegations in Germany, after the Third Circuit found that a lower court’s analysis before denying the request was incomplete.
The inventor of the Invisalign clear teeth-straightening system Monday sought to revive parts of a patent underlying the technology, telling a Federal Circuit appellate panel that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it invalidated key parts of the patent as obvious.
An intellectual property attorney has brought a defamation suit against the founder of his former firm, SpencePC, in Illinois state court, claiming the founder emailed all of the attorney's clients falsely alleging he had acted unethically and potentially illegally while employed there.
It’s been a little over five years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Actavis decision that found payments made by brand-name drugmakers to generics makers in patent settlements can raise antitrust concerns. But uncertainty over which pay-for-delay deals actually are illegal continues and recent lower court rulings have cut both ways. Here, Law360 looks at some of those recent rulings and where pay-for-delay litigation stands.
A California craft brewery that sells a "Brother Thelonious" ale is pushing to end a lawsuit filed by the estate of jazz legend Thelonious Monk, saying discovery had proven "the utter falsity" of the case.
A California federal judge refused to tinker with a jury's $30 million award to data-center manufacturer BladeRoom regarding competitor Emerson's theft of business info that allowed it to win Facebook's business for a data center in Sweden.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has ruled that consumers will not confuse a juice called “Antioxidant Superpower” with a beer called “Superpower,” rejecting the argument that the two types of beverage were closely related for trademark purposes.
A Texas federal judge has issued an order barring a convenience store from using its cartoon alligator logo, after a jury in May sided with popular convenience store chain Buc-ee's Ltd. in a trademark infringement row, finding the convenience store's logo infringed Buc-ee's cartoon beaver logo.
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.
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.
The Federal Circuit recently held that unclean hands based on serious business and litigation misconduct barred Merck from enforcing two patents against Gilead. An analysis of this decision and others demonstrates that the unclean hands defense should be considered in a variety of cases, says Francis C. Lynch, a retired senior partner at Goodwin Procter LLP.
Because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is fully funded by user fees, recent legal developments that have shaken confidence in patent value are likely to lead to problems at the agency. It is clearly time to re-examine the USPTO’s fee schedule, says Robert Stoll of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
The very first America Invents Act derivation proceeding was instituted on March 21, 2018 — more than five years after the AIA was enacted. In these proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has the ability to fashion remedies. But it does not appear to be a proceeding many are pursuing, say attorneys with Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.
The “commercial scale” threshold for intellectual property-related criminal offenses appears in important international agreements. However, there has not been a consensus on the understanding of the term, which leaves a wide and opaque margin for interpretation by countries, judges and lawyers, say Tran Manh Hung and Hoang Ngoc Quan of Baker McKenzie.
The recent Pennsylvania federal court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie is likely to have significant effects on antitrust cases challenging patent litigations as shams, say Leslie John and Stephen Kastenberg of Ballard Spahr LLP.
Techniques used to address questions of obviousness in the U.K. may prove useful to practitioners addressing questions of patent eligibility in the U.S., say Christopher Carroll and Charles Larsen of White & Case LLP.
Earlier this year, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., made headlines with his decision to leave Congress and return to law. In this series, former members of Congress who made that move discuss how their experience on the Hill influenced their law practice.
The District of Massachusetts recently issued an updated rule for scheduling and procedures in patent infringement cases, to make the district a more convenient venue. Perhaps the most important change is the newly accelerated litigation timeline, says Aaron Jacobs of Prince Lobel Tye LLP.
While resolving the issue of the availability of foreign lost profits in the context of Section 271(f)(2), the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in WesternGeco v. Ion leaves many issues unresolved, say Mark Kachner and Karen Vogel Weil of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.
The Senate Republican leadership and the Trump administration are racing to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s spot on the U.S. Supreme Court. Does opposition to their plans have any chance of success? My answer is yes, because the stakes are so high, people are so engaged, and the records of those short-listed are so deeply troubling, says Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.