Eighteen months after the U.S. Supreme Court limited where patent suits can be filed, courts continue to wrestle with questions about venue rules. Here is a look at recent decisions that have provided some guidance.
A California federal judge on Sunday doubled a 2014 jury award and ordered medical device company Cochlear Ltd. to pay more than $268 million in a lawsuit over a hearing-aid implant patent owned by the Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, a medical research organization.
The creator of Invisalign and dental scanners accused an Israel-based rival of infringing its design and trademarks covering sterile sleeves for the scanners so it could sell its similar but allegedly inferior product, according to a suit in California federal court.
A Winston & Strawn LLP arbitration agreement with a former income partner now suing the firm for gender discrimination carries "the taint of illegality" and is unenforceable, a California appellate court said Friday.
Teva Pharmaceuticals’ high-profile challenge to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy on generic-drug exclusivity is wildly speculative and has virtually no chance of succeeding, the FDA told a D.C. federal judge Friday.
The Federal Circuit heard arguments Monday regarding whether claims in two patents that relate to a method of preventing electrical fires in gas tubing are too similar to prior art and whether it is a violation of due process to retroactively declare a pre-America Invents Act patent unpatentable.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons has recused himself from any participation in the agency’s California federal court antitrust case accusing Qualcomm of anti-competitive patent licensing practices, leaving an even divide between the FTC’s Republican and Democratic commissioners as the agency and the chipmaker pursue settlement talks.
The Federal Circuit said Friday it would not reconsider an August ruling that invalidated part of a Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. ATM patent challenged by Diebold Nixdorf Inc., a rival company that the U.S. International Trade Commission found infringed the patent.
Two weeks after winning a jury verdict that Walmart willfully infringed its "Backyard" trademark, a Southern discount chain is asking a North Carolina federal judge for a quick trial to figure out how much the retail giant must pay.
Nathan Kelley, former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deputy general counsel of intellectual property law and solicitor, has joined Perkins Coie LLP as a partner in its Washington, D.C., office, the firm announced Monday.
Medtronic leveled a counterclaim Friday in a sexual orientation bias case brought by David Ruschke, a former Patent Trial and Appeal Board chief judge and onetime attorney for the medical device maker, telling a California federal court that Ruschke hasn't repaid a $250,000 loan the company gave him in 2007.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on Friday decided a "Sonia" brand of Mexican sauces was confusingly similar to a "Sonia Soni" brand of Indian spices, ruling that "certain spices may be used in both Mexican and Indian cuisine."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a ruling from the Federal Circuit that invalidated real estate search patents under the Alice test, choosing not to weigh in on whether the appellate court's ruling could be squared with a high-profile decision issued days later.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP pursued lead counsel status and class certification Friday in a proposed antitrust case against two pharmaceutical companies over the marketing of ADHD drug Intuniv, according to a filing in Massachusetts federal court.
A Virginia federal court shouldn’t throw out multidistrict litigation accusing Merck & Co. Inc. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. of manipulating the generic drug market to keep prices of the cholesterol medication Zetia high, buyers of the drug urged, claiming they can prove antitrust violations.
A former Genentech Inc. engineer pled not guilty in California federal court Friday to multiple felony charges accusing him and his former co-workers of hacking into Genentech's database and stealing top secret medical trade secrets for Taiwanese rival JHL Biotech Inc.
Shuffle Tech LLC has asked an Illinois federal judge for more than $19 million in attorneys' fees after a jury awarded the card shuffler maker $315 million on its claims that a competitor initiated sham patent litigation to shut it out of the market.
In Law360's latest roundup of new actions at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the owner of the New England Patriots "rises up" over competitive video gaming, HBO defends a famous "Game of Thrones" quote about drinking and knowing things, and Starbucks gets steamed about "Teavana."
The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial Friday in a long-running fight over trademark rights revolving around Sturgis, the famous South Dakota motorcycle meetup.
A magistrate judge rightly rejected Apple's request to claw back dozens of documents purportedly produced in error, Qualcomm said in a recent brief contesting Apple's attempt to convince a California federal judge presiding over the companies' patent dispute to rethink that refusal.
Metuchen Pharmaceuticals LLC's patent case against a company accused of selling a knockoff of the erectile dysfunction drug Stendra is headed to Texas after a judge decided Thursday the defendant's pharmaceutical license in New Jersey didn't give it a place of business in the state.
The challenges of U.S. patent litigation, combined with increasing levels of comfort with courts in Europe and Asia, are driving companies in high-stakes disputes to increasingly look beyond the U.S. and adopt global enforcement strategies. But it can be daunting to sift through the intricacies of patent litigation around the world. Here, we break down what you need to know about some of the world’s hottest patent venues.
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.
With some companies planning to launch proprietary 5G services by the end of this year, attorneys should prepare for certain legal issues, such as the internationalization of 5G royalties and the challenge of calculating royalties for 5G-related patents, say Ranganath Sudarshan and Jason Reinecke of Covington & Burling LLP.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is planning guidance to address the patent examination problems created by the courts’ interpretation of Section 101. Instead, the USPTO should focus on the legislative fix proposed by intellectual property trade associations, says Nancy Linck of Linck Consulting.
For the benefit of all stakeholders in the patent system, litigants, experts and judges should pay closer attention to claim scope and type when assessing infringement remedies. Not every claim is of equal technological or societal value, nor is infringement of every claim equally harmful to the patent owner, says Daniel Brean of the University of Akron School of Law.
In the two years since the American Bar Association's controversial anti-discrimination and harassment rule, only one state has adopted it, while numerous state supreme courts, state attorneys general and legal groups have correctly rejected Model Rule 8.4(g) as a threat to lawyers' First Amendment rights, says Bradley Abramson, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
It is not uncommon for companies to issue statements about pending litigation. But a California federal court's recent decision in Arista v. Cisco shows that, in some circumstances, such statements could be seen as part of an anti-competitive scheme, say Daixi Xu and Julie Shepard of Jenner & Block LLP.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's rule change on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard may be within the scope of the director’s powers, but it is contrary to the congressional understanding of inter partes review, to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoned consideration of the topic, and to sound public policy, says Joshua Landau of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
In the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, the U.S. Supreme Court should decline review of the nation's most polarizing political questions unless and until the questions become time-sensitive, says Alexander Klein, head of the commercial litigation group at Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco LLP.
In this series featuring law school luminaries, Boston College Law School professor Kent Greenfield reflects on his corporate law theories, his legal battle with the Pentagon over free speech and gay rights, and important constitutional law issues to watch out for.
As highlighted in the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Texas Advanced v. Renesas, plaintiffs hoping to assert trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement claims in the same lawsuit must craft damage theories carefully to avoid running afoul of the prohibition against double recovery, say attorneys at Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.
Whether Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s prior statements may be grounds for disqualification when it comes to judging certain cases is debatable, but there are no specific recusal guidelines for the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices themselves don’t even agree on where to draw the line when it comes to perceived political bias, says Donald Scarinci, a founding partner of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC.