PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Cease and Desist Letters: Protecting Your Intellectual Property the Right Way
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
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
A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages. This...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
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court judgment...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
The Canadian “accounting of profits” remedy for patent infringement, which is not available in the U.S., provides a potentially significant opportunity for companies with Canadian IP rights. Recent court decisions have...more
On February 8, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal issued public reasons for its decision dismissing Teva’s appeal relating to the damages and costs awarded against it for its infringement of Janssen’s patent for levofloxacin...more
2017 was a year of significant developments to Canadian IP law and practice, with important court decisions and numerous legislative amendments. We have taken the opportunity to review the top 10 highlights from the past...more
The year 2017 was one of the most significant years for Canadian Life Sciences IP and Regulatory Law in Canada’s history. The year saw major developments in patent linkage, patent term, and substantive patent issues. As we...more
Claims Directed to Methods for Streaming Audiovisual Data Held Unpatentable Under § 101 - In Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communications, Appeal Nos. 2016-2531, 2016-2532, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...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
Addressing the design patent battle between Apple and Samsung on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to apply the new standard or to order specific...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung alleging among other things that various portions of Samsung smartphone products infringed claims of certain design patents owned by Apple (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). In 2012,...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
The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion reversed and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an award to Apple, Inc. of $399 million of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s total profits on...more