Podcast - Part II: The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Podcast - Part I - The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Podcast - Seek Out Feedback
Podcast - Part I: Being an Expert Is a Lonely Business
Podcast - Finding Common Ground
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Podcast - "Ready for Trial?"
Podcast - Every Case Is a New World
Podcast - The 3 Core Themes of Trial Law: Do the Right Thing
Podcast - How Did We Get Here?
Podcast - Parting Thoughts: Be a "Peddler of Common Sense"
Against All Odds- Part Four
Podcast - Expert Witnesses, Special Issues
Podcast - Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses
Podcast - Drowning in Complexity
Podcast: Part I - Reading the Jury
Podcast - How to Use Humor and Anger Effectively in the Courtroom
Preparing for Deposition Success
Podcast - Connecting Separate Pieces of Evidence Clearly, Persuasively
In two June 2025 decisions, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected patent infringement jury verdicts for $218.5 million and $300 million—one reversed for claiming patent ineligible subject matter, and the other vacated...more
On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...more
OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. APPLE INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Patent plaintiffs have a right to a unanimous verdict on each...more
Apple has escaped a $300 million patent infringement verdict after a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement and damages judgment because of faulty jury...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement and damages judgments against Apple in a patent case that involves standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technology brought in the...more
Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument....more
On May 6, 2021, plaintiffs sued defendants for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The parties are biotechnology companies and competitors that offer tools for studying...more
On December 17, 2024, after a seven-day jury trial in Case No. 1:22-cv-00035 (D. Del.), the jury returned its verdict, finding Lindis Biotech’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,709,421 (claims 3, 8, and 15) and 10,071,158 (claims 1, 12,...more
NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Nos. 2022-1815, -2005, -2113 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Oct. 24, 2024). Opinion by Chen, joined by Taranto. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Reyna....more
INLINE PLASTICS CORP V. LACERTA GROUP, LLC - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts....more
The Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for October 2023 covers three decisions addressing the scope of the work-product and attorney-client privileges, limits on the use of a defendant’s use of its own patents during...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
Patents protect intellectual property, but they are most effective when the holder is willing to defend them using litigation. It may involve jury trials, bench trials or even a subsequent appeal to the Circuit Court....more
Rasmussen Instruments, LLC (“Rasmussen”) won a $20M jury verdict against DePuy Synthes (“Depuy”), a part of Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies. Rasmussen asserted Patent Nos. US 9,492,180 (‘180 patent) and US...more
In a recent opinion, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered whether to grant a joint request by settling parties to vacate the Court’s Judgment stemming from a jury trial and verdict in...more
With Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas finally cancelling his winter trials in the face of surging cases, attention turns to the Western District of Texas, which Judge Alan Albright is going in a different...more
On August 3, 2020, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified its decision in TomTom v. Adolph regarding limiting claim preambles, holding that the preamble of the claim at issue could not be...more
A recent decision from the Federal Circuit highlights the critical role that particular words can play in a jury instruction, as well as the extreme care that litigants should take in scrutinizing and objecting to a trial...more
Expert witness testimony is a frequent (almost ubiquitous) feature of patent litigation, if only because questions of the state of the art or the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art are almost always at...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - Intellectual property litigants may be increasingly addressing design patents. Design patent litigation may be getting lengthier, and this may result in the filing of more design patent...more
United States Automobile Association (USAA) is a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families. On June 7, 2018,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-2215, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020) - In this appeal from the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Appeal Nos. 2018-1363, et al. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2019) - In these appeals from the United States District Court...more
Addressing the issue of whether litigation costs that exceed potential damages necessarily render a case exceptional, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that they did not....more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more