In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
5/18/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Evidence ,
FRAND ,
Good Faith ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused...more
5/16/2018
/ Contract Interpretation ,
Contract Negotiations ,
Ericsson ,
FRAND ,
Georgia Pacific ,
IP License ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
The Federal Circuit recently overturned a decision estopping the plaintiff from pursuing its infringement claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and clarified the effect of...more
On April 18, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that a litigation funding agreement destroyed standing for a complainant at the ITC. In Certain Audio...more
4/27/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Article III ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
Initial Determination (ID) ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
IP License ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Revenue Sharing ,
Standing
On March 20, 2018, the public version of Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy Payne’s March 7, 2018 order tossing a $75 million jury verdict obtained by Ericsson against TCL Communication was released. Ericsson...more
4/2/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Expert Testimony ,
IP License ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Smartphones ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent development from the Northern District of Illinois, the court granted counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. In Shure...more
In Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (CACD January 22, 2018), the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion to award attorney fees due to Defendants’ exceptional litigation tactics under 35...more
In an interesting order issued recently in BroadSign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Judge Swain of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment of...more
In a recent development from the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne concluded that defendants Globalfoundries, Qualcomm, and Samsung waited too long prior to moving to dismiss or transfer the case due to...more
In Vecco Instruments Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC, No. 17-CV-2217 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2017), Judge Pamela Chen in the Eastern District of New York recently granted Vecco’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining SGL Carbon....more
Following a lengthy and extensive litigation that began in 2011 that culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016, smartphone industry titans Apple and Samsung will again find themselves in Federal District...more
The United States Supreme Court decided earlier this year that a 1957 opinion is still valid and still limits venue choices for patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group...more
A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more
6/14/2017
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Exceptional Case ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 285 ,
Totality of Circumstances Test ,
Willful Infringement
In keeping with recent erosion of patent rights, patent owners’ power to control the post-sale use and sale of their patented products was severely limited this week by the U.S. Supreme Court in the highly anticipated case...more
6/1/2017
/ Breach of Contract ,
Exports ,
Foreign Sales ,
Imports ,
Impression Products v Lexmark International ,
IP License ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Resales Agreements ,
SCOTUS ,
Single-Use/No Resale Restriction ,
Stream of Commerce
In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained...more
On January 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lumen View Technology LLC v. FindTheBest.com (Dkt. No. 15-1275), in which it vacated and remanded the lower court’s award of enhanced attorney fees under 35...more
In the latest development in the patent skirmishes between Apple and Samsung, on Monday, January 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California entered a permanent injunction barring...more
On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more
10/5/2015
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Article III ,
eBay Test ,
Injunctive Relief ,
iPhone ,
Irreparable Harm ,
Nexus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Public Interest ,
Samsung ,
Standing ,
Vacated