Archives: IP Litigation

Subscribe to IP Litigation RSS Feed

How Selecting The Wrong Prior Art References Will Doom An IPR

By Christopher Adams, Jeremy Dutra and Rachael Harris on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. 2017-2059, holding that the PTAB did not err in concluding that a person of ordinary skill would not have combined certain prior art identified by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. … Continue Reading

The Service Date of a Patent Infringement Complaint Begins the One Year Clock for Filing an Inter Partes Review Petition

By Christopher Adams, Jeremy Dutra and Rachael Harris on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corporation, No.2015-1242 (en banc), the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s longstanding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)’s time bar for inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions, finding that the service of any civil complaint for patent infringement— even if later dismissed—starts the clock on the statute’s one-year … Continue Reading

ITC Temporarily Rescinds Remedial Orders Based On District Court Invalidity Judgment

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
In yet another twist in the saga of Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-929, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued an order temporarily rescinding the extant remedial orders in that investigation pending appeal of a district court judgment finding the claims of the patent-in-suit invalid.  The … Continue Reading

ITC Doubles Down On Its Interpretation Of Section 337’s Domestic Industry Requirement

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
Just one month after the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an important decision in Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics Components, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097 holding that labor, capital, and employment investments in non-manufacturing activities, such as engineering and research and development, can satisfy Section 337’s domestic industry requirement (see … Continue Reading

EU Court Ruling Keeps Shoe Designers On Their Toes

By Audrey Nicolson and Katherine Sharpless on Posted in IP Litigation, Trademarks
Last month, on the heels of the ruling from the District Court of The Hague, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Christian Louboutin’s red high-heeled soles are protectable as a trademark. As previously discussed, Louboutin decided to sue to protect its hue.  Louboutin has owned a registered Benelux trademark for … Continue Reading

ALJ Cheney Grants Motion To Terminate Based On Arbitration Agreement

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
Just a few days after denying a motion to terminate in Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-1091, Order No. 23 (May 18, 2018) that was based on a forum selection clause in a prior agreement between private parties (see our prior post), Administrative Law Judge Cheney granted a motion to … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Shuts the Door on Use of Tribal Immunity in IPRs

By Tamara Fraizer on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
The Federal Circuit has rejected Allergan’s ploy to shield its Restasis patents from the scrutiny of inter partes review by assigning them to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, finding that tribal immunity does not apply in such proceedings.  The case is Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Allergan, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1638, … Continue Reading

Subsidiary’s Facility Qualifies as a Regular and Established Place of Business of the Parent for Patent Venue Purposes

By Jeremy Dutra on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
A recent decision from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas suggests that district courts are taking a more expansive view of what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” for purposes of establishing venue in patent infringement cases.  Board of Regents, The Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Medtronic PLC, Case … Continue Reading

The China Rules of Evidence Series – Online Purchase of Infringing Products and Forum Shopping in Trademark Infringement Cases

By Paolo Beconcini on Posted in China, IP Litigation, Trademarks
In China, to succeed in an intellectual property (IP) infringement lawsuit, it is beneficial to have the case heard in a court that specializes in IP disputes (e.g., the IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou). Securing a court that is away from the domicile of the infringer may also be beneficial, as it will … Continue Reading

USITC Issues Important Opinion Concerning Section 337’s Domestic Industry Requirement

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
The U.S. International Trade Commission issued an important opinion on Friday concerning Section 337’s “domestic industry” requirement, holding that investments in non-manufacturing activities, such as engineering and research and development, can be used to satisfy the required “significant investment in U.S. plant and equipment” or “significant employment of U.S. labor or capital.” The Commission’s opinion … Continue Reading

A Forum Selection Clause Provides No Basis For Terminating A Section 337 Investigation

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
Does a forum selection clause in a pre-existing agreement between opposing parties in a Section 337 investigation provide grounds for terminating the investigation?  A recent decision of Administrative Law Judge Cheney in Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-1091, Order No. 23 (May 18, 2018) concludes that the answer is … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Opens the Door to Allow Patent Owners to Recover Foreign Lost Profits

By Tamara Fraizer and Jeremy Dutra on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a patent owner can, at least in some situations, recover lost profits for the unauthorized use of its patented technology abroad.  The 7-2 decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. overturned the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which relied on the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. … Continue Reading

Seeking Attorneys’ Fees Under the Patent Act? Early and Clear Notice of an Opposing Party’s Deficient Litigation Conduct Is a Prerequisite for a Successful Motion

By Christopher Adams and Jeremy Dutra on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, No. 2017-2330 that has important ramifications for litigants seeking attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act. Section 285 authorizes a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.”  In Octane Fitness, … Continue Reading

USITC Finalizes Amendments To Procedural Rules Governing Section 337 Investigations

By Steven Auvil and Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Uncategorized, US ITC
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has published in the Federal Register final revisions to its rules of practice and procedure governing Section 337 investigations, the investigations that the ITC conducts under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 based on private party complaints against imported articles that allegedly violate U.S. intellectual property rights.  This completes a process … Continue Reading

U.S. Corporate Defendants Incorporated In Multi-District States Reside Only In A Single District For Patent Venue Purposes

By Tamara Fraizer and Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation
In the third important patent venue decision it has issued in the past week (In re: BigCommerce, No. 2018-122 (May 15, 2018)), the Federal Circuit has clarified the proper location for patent infringement suits against U.S. corporations whose state of incorporation is large enough to have multiple federal judicial districts.  According to the Court, a … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Finds Patent Venue Over Alien Corporations Is Proper In Any District

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation
In an important patent venue decision (In re HTC Corporation, No. 2018-130 (May 9, 2018)), the Federal Circuit has denied the mandamus petition of a Taiwanese company challenging the District of Delaware’s finding that that court is a proper venue for patent infringement litigation over the company.  Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brunette Machine … Continue Reading

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al.: The Magic Happens Around the Word “Franchise”

By Tom Anderton on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patents
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al  the Supreme Court found that inter partes review is constitutional under Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution in a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Thomas. The Court determined that inter partes review falls “squarely” within the public rights doctrine.  … Continue Reading

Texas Court Finds IPR Estoppel Extends To Grounds That Could Have Been Raised In Joinder Petition

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation
U.S. patent law provides that any patent challenger initiating an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) “may not assert” an invalidity ground in a patent case in U.S. district court or in the U.S. International Trade Commission that it “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.”  Despite … Continue Reading

Court of Appeal Decides That the Electronic Supply of Software Does Not Amount to a “Sale of Goods”

By Carlton Daniel and Victoria Hayman on Posted in IP Litigation, Technology
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal from the judgment of a High Court case, which concerned the question of whether a licence to use electronically supplied software amounts to the “sale of goods” under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (“Regulations”).  This question is important, given the significant protections and post-termination payouts … Continue Reading

USITC Declines To Designate An Antitrust-Based Section 337 Investigation For Early Disposition

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
Under a pilot program initiated in 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) may designate an investigation for early disposition if it believes that there is a potentially case-dispositive issue warranting the program’s speedy (100-day) treatment.  Since the program’s inception, the ITC has employed it sparingly, with only a handful of investigations garnering entry into … Continue Reading

USITC Institutes Antitrust-Based Section 337 Investigation

By Bryan Schwartz on Posted in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, US ITC
Just days after affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss price fixing claims brought under Section 337 against numerous foreign steel companies for failing to plead “antitrust injury” (see our prior post), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued a notice announcing institution of another investigation involving antitrust claims (Certain Programmable Logic Controllers … Continue Reading

Zazzle And Other Print-On-Demand Websites Can Breathe A Sigh Of Relief . . . For Now

By Allyson Madrid and Audrey Nicolson on Posted in Copyright, IP Litigation
Last month, in a February 8, 2018 Order, the Central District of California vacated its injunction in Greg Young Publishing, Inc. v. Zazzle, Inc., 2:16-cv-04587-SVW-KS, in which Zazzle was “permanently enjoined from infringing any of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S.C. § 106 with respect to Plaintiff’s copyrighted works…”  See Permanent Injunction and Order, October 27, 2017.  … Continue Reading
LexBlog