How to Avoid the Pitfalls of a Bad Sexual Harassment Policy
January 01, 2018
How can companies make sure they have sexual harassment policies in place to protect interests and employees? The authors talked to several attorneys about common pitfalls and the lay of the land in the corporate environment right now. Here are highlights from those conversations.
The Case for Use of Accelerated Case Resolution in TTAB Proceedings
December 01, 2017
This article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.
Supreme Court, Federal Circuit Deny Damages for Patent Found to Be Valid and Infringed
December 01, 2017
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.
Written Opinions Of Counsel: Valuable Tools for Avoiding Willful Patent Infringement
December 01, 2017
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.
IP News
December 01, 2017
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
Security First Approach Provides a Significant Advantage to Law Firms
December 01, 2017
Security first is a holistic approach that views security not as an information technology nuisance in need of tight cost-management controls, but as a competitive advantage to differentiation from traditional business offerings. Here's what you need to know.
How Defendant's Prior Conduct Can Impact Copyright Cases
November 02, 2017
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation. In many instances, copyright infringement lawsuits are brought against defendants who have been sued before for infringement, or related misconduct, or who have been the subject of allegations or informal complaints, or who simply have experience in copyright matters.
The New Patent Venue Regime
November 02, 2017
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.
At High Court, Just One IP Case That Matters
November 02, 2017
<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.
