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 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
Sixty-seven patent infringement trials reached a jury verdict in 2024. Of these 67 patent infringement verdicts, thirty-one (approximately 46%) were a complete patent owner win on all patent infringement and validity issues. ...more
On November 12, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Lutron Electronics Co.’s motion for sanctions against plaintiff Geigtech East Bay LLC, and precluded Geigtech from presenting any theory of damages on retrial...more
The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages....more
Crocs, Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined whether a district court erred in dismissing false advertising claims...more
On October 2, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Case No....more
On June 1, 2023, the new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) will open its doors, and enforcement of European patents in (currently) 17 contract member states will be possible with one action. This series of articles –...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
Claims With Clerical Errors Can Be Judicially Corrected and Willfully Infringed - In Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Appeal No. 21-1834, the Federal Circuit held that a court can correct obvious...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision correcting a clerical error in a claim. Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Case Nos. 21-1834 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2022)...more
On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the...more
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Applying the proper test for willful...more
Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1646, -1656 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021) - Our Case of the Week focuses on the issue of indefiniteness, and particularly, terms that are construed as...more
The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward: Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing...more
USAA filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Wells Fargo, alleging widespread infringement of USAA’s patented technologies on remote check deposits for mobile banking systems. Last November, a jury in a first case...more
Western Plastics sued Dubose Strapping for infringing a patent covering a material for wrapping rolls of metal coil. Both parties compete in the metal industry and sell a similar wrap...more
Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas held that the litigation conduct of defendants Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”), in a patent infringement action,...more
Earlier this year, a federal jury in Delaware found that Westinghouse Air Brake d/b/a Wabtec infringed eight patents owned by Siemens Mobility, including finding willful infringement as to two of the patents. The asserted...more
Olaplex sued L’Oreal for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,498,419 and 9,668,954 and asserted related breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secret claims. The patents relate to systems to protect hair from damage...more
Enhanced Damages Under the Patent Act - The Patent Act provides that once infringement has been established, a district court may “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The...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
An Illinois jury awarded football equipment manufacturer, Riddell, $5 million in patent damages against Kranos Corporation, doing business as Schutt Sports...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 Nebraska court upheld a jury’s reasonable royalty award of more than $14 million for infringement of Exmark’s patent relating to lawnmower baffles. An appellate court had vacated a previous jury award and remanded the case...more