Features
Scott Graham
<b><i>After Several IP-Heavy Seasons, the 2017 Term At the U.S. Supreme Court Looks to Be a Quiet One for Intellectual Property — with One Big Exception</b></i><p>The 2017 term at the U.S. Supreme Court looks to be a quiet one for intellectual property. But with one potential bang in the middle.
Columns & Departments
Jeff Ginsberg
&
George Soussou
Federal Circuit: Collateral Estoppel Can Apply to Patents With Claims Similar To Those in Previously Litigated<br>Federal Circuit Uses 'Rule of Reason' To Determine Patent Owner Had an Early Reduction to Practice
Features
Amy Proctor
&
Molly Russell
<b><i>Split Federal Circuit Declined to Reconsider Panel's Decision that Lost Profits Based on the</i> Panduit <i>Factors Are Fully Apportioned</b></i><p>On Sept. 1, 2017, a split Federal Circuit declined to rehear a panel decision in <i>Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.</i>, a case that could have significant implications for lost profit damages and apportionment.
Features
Susan Perng Pan
U.S. Patent Office statistics show that the PTAB has found at least one claim of a challenged patent to be unpatentable in over 80% of IPRs. Given these odds, and the fact that institution of an IPR is not appealable, a patent owner's best shot at preserving its patent rights intact is to defeat institution of the IPR trial in the first instance.
Columns & Departments
Howard J. Shire
Federal Circuit Throws Out District Court's Test for “Place of Business” for Purposes of Determining Venue in Patent Cases
Features
Louis L. Touton, Steven J. Corr
&
Nickou Oskoui
<b><i>Strategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation</b></i><p>With the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Alice</i>, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.
Columns & Departments
Jeff Ginsberg
&
Dorothy LeRay
Fed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference<br>Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable Harm
Features
J. Alexander Lawrence
The Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of "resides" in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of "resides" in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391.
Features
Scott Graham
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it's not clear yet who's supposed to be listening.
Features
Christopher Gaspar
&
Sean Hyberg
<b><i>Supreme Court Turns Back Clock</b></i><p>Although <i>TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods </i> answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
