A split Federal Circuit panel on Friday endorsed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s new stance that applicants who appeal to a district court must pay the agency’s legal bills regardless of whether it wins or loses.
A creditor of in-store media provider Muzak and parent company Mood Media told a New York bankruptcy court on Friday that the companies' bid for Chapter 15 protection should fail to the extent that it will disrupt pending patent infringement claims potentially worth up to $130 million.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor discusses the one thing she hates seeing at oral arguments, why diversity matters on the federal bench, and her habit of embracing audience members at live talks, in the first of two articles based on an exclusive interview with the 111th justice.
The heirs of comedy duo Abbott and Costello on Monday said they shouldn’t owe attorneys’ fees for filing a failed copyright suit over a Broadway play’s use of the famous “Who’s on First?” routine, saying the judge’s analysis of the reasonableness of their case was based on hindsight.
Thru Inc. told the Ninth Circuit Friday that a California federal judge erred in ruling it infringed Dropbox’s trademark and awarding its electronic file management rival $2.3 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, saying he disregarded key evidence and that Dropbox was the party responsible for the lawsuit’s hefty expenses.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided in Matal v. Tam that the federal government’s ban on offensive-trademark registrations violates the First Amendment. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision is significant.
The Federal Circuit ruled Monday that Amazon.com shopping apps did not infringe a patent owned by a unit of Honeywell International Inc., upholding a 2016 decision from a federal judge in Delaware.
The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that the asserted claims of an Intellectual Ventures wireless communications patent are invalid because a set of prior art would make them obvious.
As the U.S. Supreme Court nears the end of its term, it performed some legal housecleaning Monday by declining to hear five intellectual property cases involving copyrights, trade secrets and patents for companies in the technology and telecommunications sectors.
The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that a Cole Kepro International LLC patent related to casino gambling machine cabinets was invalid, finding that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention.
An Illinois federal judge handed Comcast, Dish and Echostar wins in identical suits alleging the telecommunications companies infringed a patent for a system of selecting television channels, ruling Monday that it is akin to a paper channel guide and that the patent is invalid.
Lyft Inc. on Friday blasted Uber Technologies Inc. for bringing it into Waymo LLC’s trade secrets suit against Uber in California federal court, saying Uber's subpoena is a thinly veiled attempt to get access to a competitor's confidential information, not a legitimate litigation tactic.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board wrongly invalidated claims in two patents covering digital camera imaging technology when it introduced its own reasoning as to why the claims challenged by Samsung were obvious and anticipated, Imperium IP Holdings told the Federal Circuit on Thursday.
Japanese pharmaceutical companies Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. urged the Federal Circuit on Friday to reverse the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that several claims in their patent related to Durezol eye drops were invalid since they were made obvious by a prior patent and an international publication.
NBC Universal urged the Ninth Circuit on Friday to affirm a decision to toss former Olympic figure skater Oksana Baiul’s claims that NBC owes her $10 million in royalty payments from the 1994 television special “Nutcracker on Ice,” arguing that the California suit was barred by a nearly identical suit in New York.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday — that the federal ban on offensive trademarks violates the First Amendment — was more than 70 years in the making.
An AIG affiliate told the Ninth Circuit on Friday that a lower court wrongly ordered it to cover $5 million of a settlement over a software company’s alleged stock inflation amid a patent infringement suit, saying it wasn’t on the hook as a secondary insurer because the primary insurer knew of the litigation risks before it signed on.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to weigh the constitutionality of America Invents Act inter partes reviews is giving some looking to challenge patents reason to pause. Here, experts share what steps patent owners can take in case the justices do upend the popular review program.
Surviving members and legal representatives of rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd filed suit in Manhattan federal court Friday against ex-band drummer Artimus Pyle and Cleopatra Films over an in-production biopic about a plane crash that killed some original band members, saying it violates a 1988 agreement.
In Law360's latest roundup of new actions at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Nintendo fights a megachurch over "Switch," Conagra asks the board for consistency over "Choice Cuts" frozen meals, and Volkswagen asserts its trademark rights in the shape of its iconic van.
The Federal Circuit on Friday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating a Columbia Sportswear Co. unit’s patent on waterproofing leather at the urging of Italian clothing maker Geox SpA, in the process explaining what the board must find to hold a patent obvious.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put tighter restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits, a decision that upends nearly 30 years of established practice and will likely force many lawsuits out of the patent litigation hotbed of the Eastern District of Texas. Here, check out all of our best coverage of the case.
In its most recent petition advocating mandatory disclosure of litigation finance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce simply rehashes the same arguments from its previous failed efforts to convince the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the dire implications of undisclosed funding relationships, say members of IMF Bentham Ltd.
In Water Splash Inc. v. Menon, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the Hague Convention does not preclude service by mail on defendants residing in foreign countries. Attorneys with Jones Day review how the court resolved this long-standing question for many jurisdictions.
A stay of district court litigation pending inter partes review is not a given. In this article, Jim Warriner of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP looks at three years of orders on contested motions to stay from the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas.
What were the chances a few simple provisions of the America Invents Act would end up in a separation-of-powers argument over what a law means and who can fill in the gaps? With the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to hear the appeal by SAS Institute, our insular patent world may soon get caught up in something far bigger, says Bruce Stoner, of counsel at Greenblum & Bernstein PLC and former chief administrative patent judge at the U.S.... (continued)
Waymo v. Uber Technologies is fascinating on a number of levels and presents a host of object lessons for employers. From these lessons, there are four steps that all employers and workplace attorneys should consider adopting to avoid being embroiled in a similar high-stakes courtroom battle, says Michael Elkon of Fisher Phillips.
Automated driving isn't coming — it’s here. The automotive industry is implementing strategies, tools and technologies to not only allow the car to drive, but to operate using "internet of things" devices. In this video, Eversheds Sutherland LLP partners Mary Jane Wilson-Bilik and Griff Griffin discuss how the internet of things in driverless cars will impact big data, cybersecurity, data protection, intellectual property and patents.
While the U.S. Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision has been widely hailed as ending the Eastern District of Texas’ run as the go-to patent venue for many plaintiffs, six new cases filed by Uniloc suggest that some businesses may continue to see cases filed against them there, says Stephen Stout of Vinson & Elkins LLP.
The District of Delaware — where an increased number of patent cases are likely to be litigated following TC Heartland — has recent case law that may make it easier for defendants in patent infringement cases to bring antitrust counterclaims, including against nonpracticing entities, say Adam Hudes and Stephen Medlock of Mayer Brown LLP.
One way local startups have remained competitive is by moving earlier in their growth cycle into co-working spaces, joining technology accelerators, and seeking crowd financing and government grants. This means that startups are confronting very real legal risks sooner than they might otherwise, says Robert Kramer of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.
The U.S. Supreme Court's forceful, largely unanimous patent exhaustion ruling this week in Impression Products v. Lexmark is likely to clear up any clouds on the supply chain brought about by the Federal Circuit’s previous decisions, say Vincent Yip and Peter Wied of LTL Attorneys LLP.