Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Design Patent Damage Awards Image

Design Patent Damage Awards

John S. Artz, Franklin M. Smith & Brandon L. Debus

<b><i>Rotten for Apple</b></i><p>On Dec. 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, hearing its first design patent case in over 120 years, unanimously threw away a $400 million award that Apple won against Samsung Electronics. In doing so, the justices interpreted an 1887 statute providing that it is unlawful to manufacture or sell an "article of manufacture" that a patented design or colorable imitation has been applied.

Features

Supreme Court Rules on Design Patent Damages<br><i>Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc.</i> Image

Supreme Court Rules on Design Patent Damages<br><i>Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc.</i>

Brendan Mee & Nathan Renov

On Dec. 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a damages award of $399 million that Apple won against Samsung in an ongoing design patent dispute.

Features

<b><i>BREAKING NEWS</b></i><br>Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Blockbuster Patent Venue Case Image

<b><i>BREAKING NEWS</b></i><br>Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Blockbuster Patent Venue Case

Jan Wolfe

In a win for the tech industry, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 14 to hear a case that could move patent cases out of the Eastern District of Texas.

Features

<b><i>Online Extra</b></i><br>Apple Loses to Samsung in Supreme Court Design Patent Case Image

<b><i>Online Extra</b></i><br>Apple Loses to Samsung in Supreme Court Design Patent Case

Tony Mauro

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Samsung Electronics on Dec. 6 in its titanic patent dispute with Apple Inc. over design features copied from Apple iPhones.

Features

Expanded Means-Plus-Function Analysis Presents New Opportunities and Challenges Image

Expanded Means-Plus-Function Analysis Presents New Opportunities and Challenges

Joshua D. Curry & Kate E. Hart

The Federal Circuit's <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Williamson v. Citrix Online</i> expanded the potential application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, making it more likely that functional claim language will be construed as a means-plus-function limitation even in the absence of the word "means." This article discusses recent decisions applying <i>Williamson</i> and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.

Features

Salvaging a Patent After a Post-Grant Proceeding Image

Salvaging a Patent After a Post-Grant Proceeding

Donald Heckenberg

When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decides to institute a post-grant proceeding, the subject patent is in jeopardy.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES