Patent Litigation
Publications of Interest
LawFlash/Client Alert | Antitrust LawFlash
J. Everett, Jr., Sean Duffy, Steven Reed, Scott Stempel
Decision by court of appeals affirms that settlements that do not expand the exclusionary scope of a patent are not subject to antitrust challenge.
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Robert Smyth, Ph.D.
Supreme Court affirms Federal Circuit ruling allowing submission of additional evidence to obtain a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145.
LawFlash/Client Alert | Insurance Recovery LawFlash
Paul Zevnik, Michel Horton
On October 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Colorado law, reversed a district court decision and held that a patent infringement claim may constitute an "advertising injury," thereby triggering, at a... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
R. (Ted) Cruz
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A. , No. 10-6 (2011), holding that to prove inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) a plaintiff must prove that the ... more
Outside Publication | Article
David Levy, C. Erik Hawes
Patent infringement claims against some retailers, particularly online outlets, are becoming more frequent, with increased activity a possibility for the future. Retailers should be familiar with the actions they need to take if confronted with a patent-related lawsuit.
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
On June 10, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment that Solo Cup Company was not liable for the false marking of unpatented articles. In its decision in Pequignot v. Solo Cu... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
As is known among many in the intellectual property field, Judge Randall R. Rader, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, periodically takes a break from his appellate duties to preside over trials of patent case... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
On December 28, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Moore (joined by Judges Rader and Plager), held that section 292 of the patent statute provides for a fine of up to $500 per article... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
On December 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Prost (joined by Judges Schall and Moore), affirmed the jury's $200 million award in a patent infringement action brought by i4i against M... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
The Fifth Circuit recently issued a decision that may have implications for patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas. It has been a common belief among defendants sued in the Eastern District that motions for transfe... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property Practice
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a parent company may not recover the lost profits of a wholly owned subsidiary as damages in a patent infringement action, because the parent could n... more
Outside Publication | Article
Winstol Carter, Jr., Thomas Davis
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property
On September 7, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step in what may turn out to be a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. Patent System. In a 263-to-136 vote, with 38 members not voting, the House approved a number... more
LawFlash/Client Alert | Intellectual Property LawFlash
Intellectual Property
On May 23, the Solicitor General submitted an amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court deny the pending Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Joblove, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al (tamoxifen) patent litig... more