Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit has long maintained that it is entitled to review a claim construction decision de novo, without deference to the district court. See, e.g., Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Over the years, this approach has led to a notably high reversal rate of district court claim construction decisions, peaking at 44% in 2004. Although the reversal rate has decreased since then (e.g., dipping to 16.5% in 2009), this “two bites at the apple” approach remained controversial. Many criticized the methodology as judicially inefficient, creating unpredictability and uncertainty, and thus deterring litigants from settling earlier. However, on Jan. 20, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected this blanket policy of de novo review in favor of a hybrid approach. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).
What didn't change? Analogous to the interpretation of a contract, de novo review will still apply if a claim term is construed based solely on intrinsic evidence (i.e., the four corners of the patent and its file history).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.