Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in <i>Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.</i> On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
Features
Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split, Finds That Venue Is Not Waived Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) for Cases Brought before <i>TC HeartLand</i><br>Federal Circuit Reverses Award of Lost Profits Because Product Sold to a Single Customer Was an Available Non- Infringing Alternative
Features
Venue in patent cases lies "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in <i>TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods</i>. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
Features
<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
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
<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
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
Federal Circuit Throws Out District Court's Test for “Place of Business” for Purposes of Determining Venue in Patent Cases
Features
<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.