Just Press "Play"
Key Discovery Points: Be a Team Player When It Comes to Production
Podcast - “I Lied Like a Dog!”
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 511: Listen and Learn -- Landlord/Tenant Law (Part 1)
Key Discovery Points: A Judicial Approach to Handling AI-Generated Evidence
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
The Three C’s for Addressing Prior Inconsistent Statements
Understanding Discovery in Commercial Litigation
The JustPod: Defending the "Evil Genius:" A Conversation with Leonard Ambrose
Podcast - "Ready for Trial?"
Podcast - Every Case Is a New World
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 501: Listen and Learn -- Present and Future Estates (Part 1)
The JustPod: The King of Cross: A Discussion with Larry Pozner, a Leading Expert on Cross-Examination
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Eyes on the Evidence: Powerful Legal Presentations – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 57 - Wired for Truth: The Art & Science of Polygraphs
Podcast - Parting Thoughts: Be a "Peddler of Common Sense"
Key Discovery Points: Timing Sweet Spots for Spoliation Motions
Key Discovery Points: Should Hyperlinked Files Be Treated as Modern Attachments?
Podcast: Are Legal Holds Protected by Privilege? Insights from the FTC's Battle with Amazon
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal...more
A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the...more
In Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the judgment in a patent infringement case involving three patents owned by Jiaxing Super...more
The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
Cooley’s Michael Berkovits says lawyers working on an intellectual property dispute should consult closely with forensic analysts and treat their findings as an investigative tool. Computer forensic analysis has become a...more
In a pivotal ruling for patent damages and standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated a $300 million award against Apple in a long-standing dispute with Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. See Optis...more
In EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial on damages because EcoFactor’s expert’s opinion was unreliable under Fed....more
Evidence is a key battleground in virtually all patent litigation cases. As a Court designed to combine the best and most efficient features of the main EU national patent litigation systems, the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”)...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment grant based on an equitable estoppel defense, finding that the accused infringer failed to show that the patent owner’s silence or...more
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit en banc banished the notion that the reliability of an expert’s methodology under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) is a question of weight, not admissibility. The en banc Court...more
In the first en banc decision for a utility patent case since 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC and held that EcoFactor's damages expert's...more
In an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a damages expert that a lump-sum...more
On May 21, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc ruling in which the court remanded the case for a new trial on damages. In so doing, the Federal Circuit emphasized the role of the court in...more
Admissibility standards for patent damages experts has come under scrutiny. Previously, we highlighted the EcoFactor v. Google case regarding Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the admissibility of EcoFactor’s...more
The Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in EcoFactor v. Google, which provides further clarity on the admissibility standards for damages experts under Rule 702. This decision reverses the original panel’s...more
In July 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) clarified its procedural rules surrounding evidence preservation and confidentiality. It confirmed that the deadline for bringing an action on the merits only starts to run after...more
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
In Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon, The Federal Circuit issued a decision that should come as a comfort to patent owners, addressing the interplay between decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes...more
For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for...more
ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. Before Hughes, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board - A party in a PTAB proceeding forfeits the ability to challenge an opposing party’s discovery obligation violation...more
In CQV Co. Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) the interaction of indemnification agreements with Article III standing for appeals of post-grant review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more
On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more