Source: http://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/patent-ltigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:59:47+00:00

Document:
Fans of movies about fictional superheroes are probably familiar with Captain America and his miraculous shield. Recently, however, his shield showed up in a most unlikely place: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
The Federal Circuit ruled that basing a reasonable royalty calculation on the “smallest salable unit” does not obviate the need to apportion damages to the patented contribution within that unit.
The law firm pulled off a patent coup for its defense contractor client in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
November 27 was supposed to be the big Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. After two hours of questioning, it seemed more like a big bust.
On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.
Venue in patent cases lies "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
The 2017 term at the U.S. Supreme Court looks to be a quiet one for intellectual property. But with one potential bang in the middle.
On Sept. 1, 2017, a split Federal Circuit declined to rehear a panel decision in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., a case that could have significant implications for lost profit damages and apportionment.
U.S. Patent Office statistics show that the PTAB has found at least one claim of a challenged patent to be unpatentable in over 80% of IPRs. Given these odds, and the fact that institution of an IPR is not appealable, a patent owner's best shot at preserving its patent rights intact is to defeat institution of the IPR trial in the first instance.
With the Supreme Court's decision in Alice, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.
The Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of "resides" in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of "resides" in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391.
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it’s not clear yet who’s supposed to be listening.
Although TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 §1391
 v.