Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Incidental, Reliance, and Restitution Damages (Contracts)
Integrated Case Themes & Nuclear Verdict Causes – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 46
On-Demand Webinar | Impacts of COVID-19 on Litigation Economic Damages
KT Sound Bytes Episode 1 | The Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Liu v. SEC
Butler's Thursday Tips #3 | Handling Business Loss Claims
In 2024, the Federal Circuit set forth a standard for determining whether extraterritorial sales activity could be considered in a reasonable royalty award for patent infringement. Here, we summarize the court’s opinion in...more
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury finding of infringement from the District...more
Update: On September 28, 2021, Apotex applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39851). On July 23, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Apotex’s appeal of the Federal Court’s (FC)...more
On November 20, 2019, the Federal Court (FC) issued its reconsideration decision on the quantum of damages owed by Apotex for its infringement of eight Eli Lilly process patents related to the antibiotic cefaclor: Eli Lilly...more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. to decide whether a showing of willfulness is necessary to obtain a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act....more
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), trademark holder who proves infringement may receive as damages an award of profits “subject to the principles of equity.” This phrase has divided the circuit courts going back several decades, with...more
A petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court asks the Court to decide whether a plaintiff must prove willful infringement to obtain an award of a trademark infringer’s profits for a violation of 15...more
On February 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“Power Integrations”) petition for writ of certiorari. The question presented to the Court was whether a plaintiff who had proven customer demand for...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
In 2018 we reported on a number of developments in life sciences IP and regulatory law. Our most-read articles were: #1 a June update on biosimilars (authored by Urszula Wojtyra); #2 a “live” summary chart of Vanessa’s Law...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018) - The Court affirmed a jury verdict of patent infringement and vacated a...more
Proving that damages for design patent infringement can still be significant, Columbia Sportswear Co. was awarded more than $3 million last month by a California jury in a design patent infringement lawsuit against Seirus...more
Just when it seemed that we might have finally reached the end of the epic battle between Apple and Samsung in what was once called the “patent trial of the century,” the District Court for the Northern District of California...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more
On January 17, the Northern District of California approved the latest amendments to its Patent Local Rules, which became effective immediately. Traditionally seen as a thought leader on organizing and structuring patent...more