The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday that America Invents Act reviews do not violate the U.S. Constitution preserves the system for challenging patents, but the narrow decision will likely prompt more constitutional challenges to procedures used in the reviews, attorneys say.
The powerful Recording Industry Association of America is urging the full Ninth Circuit to overturn last month’s ruling that the hit song “Blurred Lines” infringed Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Got to Give It Up,” calling the decision a “dangerous precedent for the future.”
The U.S. and U.K. governments’ recent joint warning about hacking threats from Russia offers assurance to businesses that government officials are open to working with them to combat such cyberattacks, while potentially emboldening them to push for stronger deterrence measures, attorneys say.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must decide the validity of all challenged claims in America Invents Act reviews could simplify certain patent disputes, but it raises a host of questions for the PTAB and for litigants, with increased costs and less detailed institution decisions possible.
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel has denied a request from Complete Genomics Inc. to review the validity of rival Illumina Cambridge Ltd.'s DNA sequencing patent, saying the arguments were comparable to those by another company the PTAB and Federal Circuit already rejected.
McGraw-Hill, Cengage and other textbook companies asked a New York federal judge Monday to finalize a $34.2 million verdict won against Book Dog Books earlier this month over infringing books.
A New Jersey federal judge ruled Tuesday that Goldman Sachs does not have to pay the legal fees, now pegged at $10 million, incurred by its former vice president Sergey Aleynikov in a nine-year fight with prosecutors over his alleged theft of code, saying chitchat from a Delaware business judge doesn’t trump binding precedent from the Third Circuit.
Genentech on Monday urged the Federal Circuit to affirm a California federal judge's tossing of claims that it induced others to infringe a patent covering treatments for conditions such as breast cancer, arguing that not only was the lower court correct to do so, but that it should have gone further by invalidating the patent's asserted claims.
The House of Representatives passed a pair of bills Tuesday meant to make outer space and terrestrial technology development more commercially oriented, changing rules for commercial space missions and the National Science Foundation.
A music producer who bought the rights to the 1963 CBS production “The Judy Garland Show” sued the heirs of the movie star and Barry Manilow in California federal court Monday, alleging they used audio from the show in Manilow’s album featuring “duets” with dead musicians, as well as footage in his concerts and in a promotional video.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday decided two patent cases: In Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC the justices upheld the constitutionality of America Invents Act reviews and in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu the court ruled the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must decide the validity of every challenged claim when it agrees to institute AIA reviews. Here, attorneys tell Law360 how these decisions will impact practicing before the PTAB.
When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued his latest broadside to the well-established doctrine of Chevron deference in SAS v. Iancu on Tuesday, Justice Stephen Breyer refused to let the affront go uncontested, writing that Chevron should be treated as a "rule of thumb" giving federal agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws.
The Second Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action accusing Etsy of concealing risks regarding counterfeit goods that led to a stock plunge after its initial public offering, concluding that shareholders failed to show the sort of false statements necessary to support their securities claims.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he would dispatch two of his top economic advisers to China “in a few days” to discuss the two countries’ escalating trade tensions over steel and aluminum tariffs, technology policy and intellectual property enforcement.
The Fourth Circuit on Tuesday overturned a judge’s ruling that Walmart “deliberately” infringed a smaller chain’s “Backyard” brand, tossing out a $32.5 million fine and sending the case to a jury.
A Texas federal judge has refused to upend a $21.1 million jury verdict handed down after a satellite internet service provider was found to have infringed upon an Israeli defense contractor's patent, instead tacking some $5.8 million onto the bill for royalties that accumulated before and after the trial.
A medical supply company is urging a Pennsylvania state judge to find that its arbitration agreement with Lindquist & Vennum LLP, which was acquired by Ballard Spahr LLP last year, did not bar it from pursuing malpractice claims over allegedly bad legal advice about its ability to rent out patented laser technology.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must decide the validity of every challenged patent claim when it agrees to institute America Invents Act review, a departure from the PTAB’s current practice that could have wide-ranging implications for cases at the board.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that America Invents Act reviews do not violate the U.S. Constitution and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has the authority to invalidate patents, leaving intact a system that has been used to challenge thousands of patents.
The full Federal Circuit has refused to reconsider a panel’s decision upholding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board judgment against suture anchor maker Arthrex Inc. that triggered patent owner estoppel, blocking the company from obtaining future patents on those products, according to a short ruling Monday.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may be on the verge of switching to the claim construction standard used in district court, a move attorneys say won't impact the outcome of most cases but could present strategic issues, particularly for challengers.
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.
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.
In the age of e-commerce, counterfeit cosmetics present a growing challenge — not only do they pose significant health risks to consumers, but they raise serious legal concerns for brand manufacturers, distributors and retailers, say Aliza Karetnick and Kelly Bonner of Duane Morris LLP.
In WesternGeco v. Ion, the government and WesternGeco argued that proximate cause and foreseeability should determine the limits of recoverable patent damages, based on congressional intent and statutory language. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely apply the extraterritoriality framework set forth in the 2016 RJR decision, say Jerry Selinger and Grant Davis of Patterson & Sheridan LLP.
To discharge their ethical obligations to their clients during a mediation, lawyers must not allow mediators to take on inappropriate responsibilities. Lawyers should not sign whatever agreement a mediator puts under their nose, and should conduct as much of the face-to-face settlement negotiations as possible, says Jeff Kichaven, an independent mediator.
Several California appellate courts have recently ruled on conflicts between employers and publishers over the appropriateness of anonymous online posts, including the alleged publication of trade secrets. Now the California Supreme Court is poised to decide Hassell v. Bird, a key case in this free-speech battle, says Michael Weil of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
In light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer v. HP, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a new memorandum regarding subject matter eligibility. Patent practitioners now have a new tool to combat patent-ineligibility challenges, say Michelle Holoubek and Lestin Kenton of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
With Federal Trade Commissioner Terrell McSweeny resigning soon, acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen could become the sole commissioner. The FTC seems to think it can act by a 1-0 vote, but this may be unlawful and is certainly unwise, say Stephen Calkins of Wayne State University and John Villafranco of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.
Affirmance of the California federal court's decision in Dodocase v. MerchSource would have an important impact on the rights of patent licensees to challenge patentability in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and may provide a pathway for patent owners to dispose of PTAB patent challenges, say attorneys with Goodwin Procter LLP.
While the Federal Circuit's 2016 ruling in Immersion v. HTC highlights enhanced willingness in the U.S. to not disturb the validity of many patents merely due to technicalities associated with priority claim assertions, the situation is quite to the contrary in China, as evidenced by the recent Ruike decision, say Junqi Hang and Can Huang of Dragon Intellectual Property Law Firm.
How can we improve meetings in the legal industry, which tends to evolve with the speed of a tranquilized water buffalo mired in quicksand? Breaking it down to three phases can yield significant benefits, says Nicholas Cheolas of Zelle LLP.
The U.K. Court of Appeal's decision last month in Regeneron v. Kymab is significant because it aligns the U.K.’s approach to the assessment of insufficiency with that of the European Patent Office. It also highlights, for U.S. companies, the stricter standard to which patent specifications are subject in Europe, say Edward Kelly and Regina Sam Penti of Ropes & Gray LLP.