There have been a number of consequential patent rulings over the past 12 months, from the U.S. Supreme Court allowing patent owners to recover some foreign lost profits to the Federal Circuit finding that tribal sovereign immunity doesn’t apply at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here's a look back at the most significant rulings of 2018.
About four months after getting dealt a $105 million verdict with trebled damages, Scientific Games Corp. has agreed to pay Shuffle Tech LLC $151 million to settle claims it used sham patent litigation to keep control of the automatic card shuffler market.
The Law Offices of Bruce J. Chasan sued Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP on Friday in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking $160,000 the firm claims Pierce Bainbridge owes for stealing its client, a wrestler suing Microsoft Studios Inc. and Epic Games Inc. for using his likeness without his consent in the "Gears of War" video game franchise.
A Canadian budget airline should be punished with sanctions, including dismissal of its complaint, for failure to produce crucial documents in its cybersquatting suit against a web design company, a travel consultancy and their shared director, the defendants told an Illinois federal court on Thursday.
AstraZeneca has hit more generic-drug makers with a patent infringement suit in New Jersey federal court over a generic alternative to Faslodex, its injection-administered drug for battling breast cancer past menopause.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has revoked a ban blocking financial services company Diebold from importing ATMs found to infringe Nautilus Hyosung America Inc.’s patent, pointing to a Federal Circuit decision that invalidated parts of that patent, according to a Federal Register notice set to publish Monday.
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday denied a petition from Ranbaxy Inc. in a lawsuit where a lower appellate court allowed a fellow generic-drug maker to move forward in arbitration with claims it had been tricked into assigning patent rights to Ranbaxy.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has launched an investigation into foreign imports of car emissions control systems, following accusations from chemical company Ingevity Corp. that MAHLE Filter Systems North America Inc. and several foreign producers ship filter systems products into the U.S. that rip off Ingevity’s intellectual property.
The Federal Circuit ruled Friday that a medical device company that beat a patent lawsuit from Spineology Inc. over a surgical tool for cutting bone is not entitled to recover its attorneys' fees, affirming a lower court’s ruling.
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions have cleared up lingering questions about when patents can be invalidated under the double-patenting doctrine and identified situations where it does not apply, providing patent owners with ways to prevail against invalidity arguments.
In Law360's latest roundup of new actions at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ExxonMobil isn't happy about a double X mark, CBS aims to boldly go after a startup's slogan, and Nike files its latest case over "Just Do It."
In this week’s round of intellectual property attorney moves, Greenberg Traurig launched a new video game and esports group and bolstered its IP and technology practice with the addition of a seasoned shareholder, while Davis Wright Tremaine hired a media litigator with a history of representing famous artists. Here are the details on these notable IP hires.
A long-running patent case over teeth-straightening technology has become the “oldest and least favorite” case of one Texas federal judge, who warned lawyers for two dental companies to stop writing her “whiny” letters.
From "Stairway to Heaven" to Fox News to an epic battle over smartphone software, 2018 saw too many important copyright rulings to keep straight. Here are the 10 biggest you need to remember, plus seven more that didn't make the cut.
The past year has seen President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade posture toward China shift from mere rhetoric to actual policy, sparking a massive tariff battle that has stretched into nearly every sector of the U.S. economy. Here, Law360 offers a rundown of how we got here.
A California federal judge has refused to toss a data analytics company's copyright infringement and antitrust claims against software maker SAP SE, but dismissed its trade secret claims for now.
The Tenth Circuit on Thursday affirmed that State Farm doesn’t have to cover a businessman in a lawsuit alleging he misappropriated a former partner’s idea for a gas detection system to form a competing company, agreeing with a lower court that coverage is unavailable because the businessman wasn’t sued over his actions as an officer of the new company.
Two banking executives acted as moles at a community bank in Wyoming, feeding information and customers to a rival institution to secure ownership stakes and executive positions, the Federal Reserve Board claimed in a disciplinary notice Thursday.
The Federal Trade Commission will be able to present written testimony from Huawei and LG Electronics Inc. in the upcoming California federal court trial over antitrust charges the Federal Trade Commission has brought against Qualcomm.
A Maryland federal judge has tossed claims brought by regenerative medicine company Osiris Therapeutics Inc. that its rival MiMedx Group Inc. breached a contract and stole trade secrets when the company acquired Osiris’ former distributor, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit.
The University of Texas can’t be forced to sue the Baylor College of Medicine for infringement of cancer therapy patents, and a drugmaker licensing those patents can’t sue without UT by its side, a Texas federal judge has ruled, dooming the litigation.
Stand-out intellectual property attorneys this year landed multimillion dollar verdicts, prevailed at the Supreme Court, and clarified patent infringement standards at the Federal Circuit. The accomplishments of these six IP lawyers set them apart from their peers and earned them spots on Law360's list of Intellectual Property MVPs.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu told Law360 in an interview Thursday that the many changes he has spearheaded during his busy first year in office should provide a clearer landscape where patentees and the public know better how patent disputes might play out.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods in May 2017, revitalizing the patent venue statute. Alex Chachkes and Josh Montgomery of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP review its impact over the past year and a half.
Last month, Amrock appealed a curious verdict that awarded contract breach defendant HouseCanary $706 million on a trade secret counterclaim. There are several factors that should cause one to raise an eyebrow over this initial outcome, says Thomas Hodge of Brock and Scott PLLC.
Two recent decisions from the Federal Circuit — Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures and Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical — clarify the law of "obviousness-type double patenting" and give certainty to biopharmaceutical patent owners, say Irena Royzman and Andrew Cohen of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.
In this overview of the latest iteration of Swiss tax reform, Danielle Wenger and Manuel Vogler of Prager Dreifuss AG discuss key measures of the new reform and assess the impact for corporations.
Opening comments by parties in mediation that are made with the proper content and tone can diffuse pent-up emotion and pave the way for a successful resolution. But an opening presentation can do more harm than good if delivered the wrong way, say Jann Johnson and William Haddad of ADR Systems LLC.
I suspect the true audience for the U.S. Department of Justice’s disavowal last week of a 2013 policy statement on standard-essential patents is not the courts but rather the U.S. International Trade Commission, whose discretion to pressure standard implementers to accept onerous licensing terms will be tested in the coming years, says University of Minnesota Law School professor Thomas Cotter.
Local patent rules in the Eastern District of Texas and Northern District of California don’t squarely address the issue of what must be disclosed during claim-construction discovery in order to rely on expert declarations. But thanks to the corpus of post-Teva decisions a clearer picture has emerged, says Ken Fung of Fisch Sigler LLP.
During U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the justices’ focus on the statutory language, and the relative lack of focus on the specific facts of the case, suggest they may address the meaning of the America Invents Act language broadly, say Michael Pomianek and Michelle Nyein of Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 Alice decision created uncertainty in patent-eligibility law — uncertainty that hits at the heart of the next innovative frontier focused on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Alice’s two-step test needs to be revised or replaced, say James Fussell of Mayer Brown LLP, and Nikko Quevada and Vincent Violago of Parola Analytics Inc.
Patent-eligibility rejections at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office skyrocketed quickly after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 Alice decision. These effects were largely contained within the “business method” art units but recently have become more common in Technology Center 2100, say Kate Gaudry and Samuel Hayim of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.