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 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.
A New York federal judge has thrown out a suit against patent law firm Niro Law Group LLC by a former client that accused the firm of attempting to collect a portion of a settlement in a suit Niro did not work on, ruling that the suit was filed in the wrong state.
Medical device company Ulthera Inc. asked the Federal Circuit on Tuesday to rehear its challenge to a DermaFocus LLC patent related to an anti-aging skin care procedure, one day after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld the remaining claims in the patent on remand from that appeals court.
A California federal judge said Tuesday he can't determine whether a mural painted on a parking garage is a standalone work of art or part of the building under copyright law and so refused to let General Motors Co. escape from a copyright infringement suit accusing it of featuring the design in a Cadillac marketing campaign without permission.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court revive a federal ban on the registration of profane trademarks like "Fuct," less than two years after it categorically struck down a similar rule used against the Washington Redskins? Not f***king likely, experts say.
The D.C. Circuit on Tuesday refused to alter a ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board that set how much streaming services like Pandora Radio must pay for music until 2020, rejecting the argument that the board had used improper benchmarks from the private market.
A California federal judge on Tuesday denied a request from the government to disqualify Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP from representing an ex-Fitbit Inc. employee accused of stealing trade secrets from a prior employer, since her co-defendants — whom the firm previously represented — said they didn't mind her keeping the firm as counsel.
The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling invalidating patents on Acorda Therapeutics Inc.’s multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra could expand the impact of so-called blocking patents and may make it easier to show an invention is obvious, attorneys say.
The mounting trade imbroglio between the U.S. and China continued to intensify Tuesday as Beijing plowed ahead with new duties on $60 billion in U.S. goods, a day after President Donald Trump whacked $200 billion worth of Chinese goods with tariffs of his own.
As the global trading system sags amid rising tensions between the U.S. and its partners, the European Union on Tuesday unveiled an informal proposal to reform the World Trade Organization by modernizing its rules, improving its oversight function and repairing its hobbled dispute settlement system.
Smith & Nephew Inc. will shell out $10.5 million to Conformis Inc. to resolve all pending patent disputes between the two medical equipment manufacturers, Conformis said Monday.
Hershey Creamery Co. asked a Pennsylvania federal judge on Friday to find that a pair of Liberty Mutual companies are contractually obligated to cover the ice cream maker in a trademark dispute with a competitor over slogan infringement claims.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has asked the public for help developing tools using artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the agency’s search capabilities and streamline the patent prosecution process.
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.
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.
Many practitioners may be surprised to learn that a transition application filed as a continuation application can trigger the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act and can be challenged under post-grant review. This was the situation in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board case of Schul v. EMSEAL, say Joe Hetz and Chris Gerardot of Brinks Gilson & Lione.
In this new series featuring law school luminaries, Widener University Delaware Law School dean Rodney Smolla discusses teaching philosophies, his interest in First Amendment law, and arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black.
The Federal Circuit's Vanda v. West-Ward analysis was endorsed in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office memorandum and should allow for more consistent application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework for evaluating method of treatment claims, say Kurt Lockwood and Erin Martell of Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC.