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 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
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 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus...more
This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on...more
Hosted by C5 Group, the 21st Annual Life Sciences IP Summit returns for another exciting year with curated programming with speakers from the pharma, biotech and medical device industries that will provide practical insights...more
As post grant review allows for on sale bar assertions, and thus experimental use defenses, we wanted to highlight a recent case addressing these issues. Sunoco sued Venture and U.S. Oil Co. for infringement of U.S. Patent...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
We’re still waiting (and probably will be for a little while) for the first opinion from newly confirmed Judge Tiffany Cunningham. But in the meantime, we provide below our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our...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
Addressing claim construction, enablement, damages and willfulness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of the asserted patent and proof of infringement were, by...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on damages, finding that the jury verdict on damages was based on...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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2106-2599 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018) In an appeal from a jury verdict and JMOLs in a patent infringement case, the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: (1) To uphold a jury verdict of infringement, evidence must...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
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
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 14-1538, to resolve: “[w]hether a supplier can be held liable for providing ‘all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented...more