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
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
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
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
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the district court’s denial of Google’s motion and remand[ed] for a new trial on damages.” The decision resulted in an 8-2 vote, with Judges Reyna and Stark dissenting. The...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
5 On July 16, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed both the sua sponte order issued by the District of Delaware requiring Lori LaPray, the purported owner of all of the plaintiff LLCs created by the patent monetization firm, IP...more
Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates from Lump Sum Licenses - In Ecofactor, Inc. V. Google LLC, Appeal No. 23-1101, The Federal Circuit held that license agreements containing a lump sum payment “based on” a royalty...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion for a new trial on damages, finding that the plaintiff’s damages expert sufficiently showed that prior license...more
In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132;...more
Summary: License agreements containing a lump-sum payment “based on” a royalty rate may provide reliable evidence of a reasonable royalty rate for the licensed patent. EcoFactor sued Google for patent infringement over...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to preclude a patent owner from seeking damages based on method claims infringed outside of the United States but confirmed that reasonable...more
8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more
Earlier this month, I previewed a Federal Circuit oral argument in In re: California Expanded Metal Products Co., No. 2023-1140, where the district court vacated a jury award of a 12 percent royalty and denied a motion for an...more
Illustrating the importance of carefully drafting and reviewing language in a covenant not to sue, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the plain language of a covenant permitted a licensor to sue a...more
According to Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, obligations to negotiate under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms apply not only to standard essential patent (SEP) holders but to implementers...more
It was a tough day for opposing patent damages experts in Ecolab Inc. v. Dubois Chemicals, Inc., as Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware granted Daubert motions directed to both experts' reasonable royalty opinions. The...more
Four subjects stood out in patent litigation in Texas in April 2023: (1) applicability of the customer-suit exception to the first-to-file rule; (2) the level of ties a reasonable royalty methodology must have to the facts of...more
March's Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up covers decisions addressing post-verdict JMOL, the point at which cases become exceptional, and the standard for amending invalidity contentions, among other issues....more
A recent decision from Judge Stark, now presiding at the Federal Circuit, endorses the use, by a patent owner’s damages expert, of sales projections and a “litigation risk multiplier” in determining reasonably royalty...more
By Dan Staren and David Barker Last week, a Federal Circuit panel vacated a billion dollar jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) and remanded for a new trial on damages...more
California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Inc. and Apple Inc. Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk (concurring/dissenting). Appeal from the District Court for the Central District of California - Summary: IPR estoppel in...more
On January 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower granted a defendant’s motion to exclude an expert’s damages theory for violating the entire market value rule, reminding plaintiffs everywhere to use caution when applying...more
The lithium-ion battery, introduced commercially in 1991, revolutionized the consumer electronics industry. Compared with older battery technologies, the lithium-ion battery was lightweight and compact, had high energy...more
Technology companies frequently enter into patent licensing transactions, sometimes in order to settle patent litigation, and sometimes as a simple licensing or cross-licensing deal. But the parties to such agreements...more