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
On May 27, 2025, the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan awarded plaintiff Toray Industries, Inc. ("Toray") ¥21.76 billion (US$151 million; €133 million) in damages for patent infringement by defendants Sawai...more
A Delaware federal judge has issued a decision regarding the date that a hypothetical negotiation would have taken place, a decision that impacts the amount of damages that could be recovered in the patent dispute between...more
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
The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant decision in the ongoing patent litigation between Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) and Qiagen Sciences, LLC, reversing a Delaware district court’s judgment...more
Increasingly, plaintiffs in patent infringement suits are projecting sales through the expiration of the patent, discounting for present value, and then calling the resulting figure a “lump sum” royalty. ...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
On August 14, 2025, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) issued a Final Judgment in favor of plaintiff Geigtech East Bay LLC (“Geigtech”) in the total amount of $5,951,153.15. See Geigtech E. Bay LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co, Case No....more
Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more
In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the...more
Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a...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
On July 18, 2025, after a five-day trial, the jury in Allergan v. Revance Case No. 1:21-cv-01411 (D. Del.) entered a verdict finding claim 8 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,354,740 (“the ’740 patent”), claim 6 of U.S. Patent...more
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more
In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more
The Unified Patent Court – a one-stop-shop for European patent litigation – is now two years old. As it enters its third year of operation, we look at the approach that is becoming established in the new system, drawing out...more
Patents are a mutually beneficial agreement between inventors and the government. Each side makes concessions in service of their own, and the greater, good. It’s a careful balance, where policy and rules that are too...more
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
In a rare occurrence, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and USPTO submitted a joint “Statement of Interest of the United States of America” (DOJ Statement) in support of injunctive relief in a district court patent case: Radian...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 a recent patent case, the U.S. government urged a Texas federal court to give greater weight to the difficulty of calculating damages as a basis for finding irreparable harm. If embraced by courts, the move could give...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
On May 21, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a $20 million damages award against Google LLC in a patent infringement dispute with EcoFactor, Inc. EcoFactor, Inc. v....more
On June 16, in Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court on multiple grounds, including § 101 patent eligibility and trial procedure, in vacating infringement...more
ECOFACTOR, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC - Before the en banc court, Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A district...more