Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Life's a little less good for patent holder LG Electronics ("LGE") since the Supreme Court determined in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. that P.E.D - the patent exhaustion doctrine - terminally infected its patent infringement claims. The doctrine provides that a patent holder can only obtain one recovery for an infringement. Once that recovery has been made-by way of a...
Read More...
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp , the Federal Circuit dishes up a tasty decision on claim preclusion that certainly shouldn't ruin a patent holder's appetite for further litigation. Acumed makes clear that a patent holder's claims against an infringer for multiple versions of a product do not need to be brought in a single serving unless the allegedly infringing devices are "essentially...
Read More...
LiteCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc.
We'll give it to you neat. LiteCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc . holds that section 271 of the patent statute does not contain that requirement for the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, section 271 states a necessary element of a claim for patent infringement. According to the Federal Circuit's top shelf opinion, a complaint which sufficiently pleads a cause...
Read More...
O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology, Co., Ltd.
What's the amount of time necessary to separate a patent holder from an infringement verdict? In O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology, Co., Ltd. , 32 micro seconds was enough - that is, when combined with district court errors regarding claim construction and equivalency. The Federal Circuit's call? The infringement verdict is vacated and the ball goes back to the district...
Read More...
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.
Shocking? The Federal Circuit's opinion in Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp. doesn't necessarily reach that amplitude. Yet the decision does contain some high-wattage lessons for patent holders, as well as for those seeking to short-circuit the letter (or spirit) of existing confidentiality agreements. Let's just say this one's a live-wire. Agrizap held patent rights to certain rodent...
Read More...
Erico International Corp. v. Vutec Corp. & Wiremaid Products and Doc’s Marketing Corporation
Consider this a heads up to patent holders thinking of taking a fly at preliminary injunctive relief. In Erico International Corp. v. Vutec Corp. & Wiremaid Products, a split panel of the Federal Circuit seemed to lower the standard of proof necessary to demonstrate invalidity at that procedural juncture. The result? Efforts intended as a warm-up act in the litigation may prematurely move the question...
Read More...
TiVo v. EchoStar
You might want to fast forward through more than the commercials on this one-all the best action is in the finale. In TiVo v. Echostar the Federal Circuit engages in page after page of dense claim construction only to deliver the heart of the opinion in a single, concluding paragraph. There, it upheld the jury's entire damage award of $73 million even though it had reversed the jury's determination...
Read More...
Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories
Fair play counts in patent litigation as well as in the game of kings. In Innogenetics N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories , accused infringer Abbott played fast and loose with the trial court's procedural rules. It also took a cavalier approach to the substantive underpinnings of arguments advanced on appeal. The result? Both the district court and Federal Circuit cried foul-and Abbott saw exclusion of...
Read More...
SRI Int’l v. Internet Security Systems
In SRI Int'l v. Internet Security Systems , the district court heard what it needed to grant summary judgment of invalidity. The district court found that a paper that had been published more than a year prior to the patent application invalidated the patents under review. The Federal Circuit didn't chime in. Why? Because in this electronic world what is "publicly accessible" has...
Read More...
Hyperphrase Technologies LLC v. Google, Inc.
In Hyperphrase Technologies LLC v. Google, Inc., the Federal Circuit gave patent holder Hyperphrase what it needs to take one more trip on the patent litigation merry-go-round - but restrictions do apply. Opponent Google gets off the hook for most of its alleged acts of infringement and the opinion is nonprecedential. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit's decision-wherein the district court's...
Read More...
z4 Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
In z4 Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp ., Microsoft learned that the rules for mud and appellate arguments aren't always the same-at least not in the Federal Circuit. Apparently, following the old adage that something should stick if enough is flung, Microsoft offered up a bevy of alleged errors, arguments and attacks on appeal in an effort to defeat z4's $115 million patent infringement...
Read More...
In re Translogic Technology, Inc.
We know who T-Boned the In re Translogic Technology, Inc. patent holder and their $86.5 million patent infringement verdict. Patent holders everywhere should be on the lookout for one of those new " KSR " cars bearing license plates with the letters " P.T.O." . . . In re Translogic Technology, Inc. involved a patent covering a multiplexer-a type of complex electrical circuit. Patent...
Read More...
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation
Take a whiff of the Federal Circuit's opinion in Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation. The court-imposed "ongoing royalty" (following a jury decision of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents) smells a lot like a compulsory license agreement to us. While the court made sure to distinguish its arrangement from traditional "compulsory licenses"-- where anyone who...
Read More...
BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, Ltd.
Divided patent infringement occurs when multiple parties act jointly in order to infringe a single patent claim. Thanks to the Federal Circuit's decision in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, Ltd ., a party accused of such infringement now knows exactly how far they need to go in order to escape liability - and the answer's easily within reach. According to BMC, as long as the parties act at...
Read More...
In re Seagate Technology
It looks like shimmying under the willfulness bar just got easier with the Federal Circuit's decision In re Seagate Technology. Seagate , an en banc decision, overturns the prevailing willfulness test and establishes a new, higher standard for assessing a potential infringer's liability for enhanced damages. Don't dust off your Chubby Checker records just yet---the parameters of the test...
Read More...
More Posts
Next page »