The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) has issued final rules revising the procedure for instituting review on all challenged claims to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu.
In Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse, the Federal Circuit held, under California state law, an employment agreement that required a surf-simulation designer to assign his patents on any related inventions that did not use the employer’s confidential information after ...
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) designated as precedential two decisions involving situations where the Board determined whether to institute review, using its discretion and based on whether review would be an efficient use of the Board’s resources.
In In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC, the Federal Circuit held that Google forfeited its claim construction arguments made on appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) designated new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) precedents protecting patent owners from multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges.
In Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,1 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia directed Cisco Systems to pay $1.9 billion after the company lost a patent suit brought by Centripetal Networks for infringing its patented cybersecurity features and preventing ...
In Western Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc., the district court granted Western Plastic’s motion for treble damages because defendant DuBose Strapping did not reasonably rely on the advice of its counsel.
On August 28, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., offering a timely reminder of the importance of carefully drafting claim language as well as the technical specification that is used to interpret that claim language.
In Craft Smith, LLC v. EC Design, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, ruled that a knockoff version of a personal organizer did not infringe the original organizer’s overall design.