Source: https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/practices/ip/patent-litigation/publications.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 07:31:04
Document Index: 625508644

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 101', '§ 2451', '§ 271', '§ 292']

Patent Litigation - Publications | Perkins Coie
Home > Practices > Intellectual Property > Patent Litigation
The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) brought post-grant oppositions to the US patent system. These proceedings are referred to as inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and covered business method review (CBM). The desire was to create faster and less expensive alternative pathways for challenging patents using the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as the forum.
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, No. 15–1189, 137 S. Ct. ___, 2017 WL 2322830 (May 30, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a patentee’s sale of a product exhausts all of its U.S. patent rights in that item, regardless of any contractual restrictions the patentee may have imposed on subsequent use or sale of the product and regardless of whether the sale occurs within the U.S. or abroad.
Determining Willful Infringement When Circumstances Change
Elizabeth Banzhoff and Manny Caixeiro discuss the limitations that a jury a can come across when deciding if the defendant’s patent infringement was willful and how the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo is raising further questions.
What You Need to Know About 3-D Printing and Intellectual Property Rights
Advances in additive manufacturing, commonly known as “3-D printing,” now make it easier and less expensive for companies to manufacture products of various types.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission published guidelines that delineated how and when the Agencies would evaluate intellectual property licensing and other activities under the antitrust laws.
Selecting The Best Invalidity Ground in an Inter Partes Review
A successful petition for inter partes review (IPR) reflects a variety of considerations, including claim construction, selection of prior art and whether to use an expert declaration.
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit last week in federal court against Qualcomm, Inc., following its investigation launched in September 2014.
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power.
Top 10 Alice Cases Of 2015
Partner Amanda Tessar and associate Elizabeth Banzhoff discuss the 10 cases interpreting Alice that stood out from the pack this year
Colorado Legislature Passes 'Anti-Troll' Statute
Law Week Colorado Vol. 13 No. 27
Colorado's governor last month signed into law an “anti-troll” statute that makes illegal certain patent activities considered by many to be damaging to small businesses.
The Federal Circuit’s Markman decision removed juries from the claim interpretation process, thereby revolutionizing patent law. Designed to provide greater certainty and predictability, Markman nevertheless produced unintended consequences, increasing ambiguity and complexity.
Chasing the White Rabbit: Business Method Patents and the Continued Search for Clarity Under Alice
In 2014, the question of whether business method and software patents constitute patentable subject matter climaxed with the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Consistent with its prior ruling in Bilski, the Court affirmed that the asserted patent claims were unpatentable.
Change in How PTAB Interprets a Crucial Requirement for Initial Petitions for IPRs and CBMs
The U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) has recently changed the way it interprets a crucial requirement for initial petitions for Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews.
Qualcomm Resolves China Antitrust Investigation by Paying $975 Million and Changing its Patent Licensing Practices
Qualcomm sells chipsets and licenses its related standard-essential patents for use in 3G- and 4G-enabled smartphones and tablets. In late 2013, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began investigating Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).
Parties challenging patents under the post-issuance review proceedings authorized by the America Invents Act have long worried about estoppel in later district court cases if they lose before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
On June 2, 2014, in Limelight Networks, Inc., v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the en banc Federal Circuit and held that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) unless another entity has directly infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Federal Circuit Holds That Issues of Claim Construction Must Be Reviewed Without Deference on Appeal, Without Regard to Legal or Factual Distinctions
Since 1998, when the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., claim construction issues have been subject to de novo review on appeal. Under this standard of review, no formal deference is given to findings of the district court. Litigants dissatisfied with the district court’s claim construction have thus enjoyed, at least in theory, an entirely new opportunity to make their case on appeal.
Perkins Coie is proud to announce that the third edition of A Manufacturer's Guide to Product Liability Law in the United States is now available as an e-book and in a Chinese printed version, as well as the original English printed version.
Supreme Court Issues Significant Patent Antitrust Decision Rejecting the “Scope of the Patent” Rule
In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that reverse payment patent settlements are subject to antitrust scrutiny. Although the Court rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s request that it go further and deem such settlements presumptively anticompetitive, the Court’s decision resolves a circuit split under which most courts had held that a settlement was not subject to antitrust review so long as it fell within the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. Monday’s decision expressly rejects that “scope of the patent” rule.
In its first “final” decision under the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has invalidated and cancelled all five challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350, finding that the claims recited unpatentably abstract ideas and did not recite a “useful” invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101. A jury in a Texas federal district court had previously found that the petitioner, SAP America, Inc., infringed three of the claims at issue in the petition, awarding patent owner Versata Software, Inc. $345 million in damages. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed that award last month, although SAP has petitioned for rehearing (on grounds relating to infringement and damages rather than validity).
USPTO Launches Updated Version of its After Final Consideration Pilot Program
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched an updated version of its After Final Consideration Pilot Program (AFCP 2.0). This program is designed to be more efficient and effective than the original AFCP program and is part of the USPTO’s efforts to reduce prosecution time and increase collaboration between applicants and examiners.
With two deft strokes, Vermont simultaneously increased the tools in its enforcement toolbox and dealt a significant blow to a well-known patent assertion entity (PAE). First, Vermont filed suit against MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, a PAE, alleging that the company violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451 et seq.
On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a rare negative business review letter declining to approve a plan by Intellectual Property Exchange International Inc. (IPXI) to offer a financial exchange for licensing and trading intellectual property rights.
On November 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp., No. 2012-1183, 2012 WL 5862779 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012). They affirmed that direct purchasers of patented products have standing to pursue a Walker Process antitrust claim against the patent holder, even where the direct purchaser cannot be sued for patent infringement and otherwise lacks the ability to bring an action for declaratory judgment.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued proposed rules for the implementation of portions of the America Invents Act relating to the post-grant review and inter partes review of patents and to the conduct of trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board regarding such review. Comments on the proposed trial rules are due April 9, 2012, and comments on the proposed rules for post-grant review and inter partes review are due April 10, 2012. If finalized, the proposed rules for post-grant review and inter partes review will take effect on September 16, 2012. The Patent Office also issued proposed rules specifically for the review of business method patents.
Today, after years of contentious debate over what should constitute “patent reform,” President Obama signed into law the America Invents Act, regarded by some to be the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952.
Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A.Inducing Infringement: Supreme Court Clarifies Knowledge Standard
On May 31, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the level of knowledge required to establish inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), which provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”
TheraSense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Company En Banc Federal Circuit Toughens Standards for Proving Inequitable Conduct
On May 25, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in TheraSense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Company By a 6-4-1 vote, the court significantly narrowed the classes of cases where courts may find a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office.
Federal Circuit Alters Test for Contempt in Patent Cases and Imposes Greater Burden on Adjudged Infringers to Seek Clarification of Ambiguous Injunctions
On April 20, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.,[1] vacating one ground for a contempt citation but affirming the other and upholding a $90 million sanction. Along the way, the court significantly revised its approach to contempt proceedings in ways that may both help and hurt patentees in future cases.
Is There a Better Way to Resolve a Patent Dispute Than in a Court?
Who's Who Legal: Patents 2010
Business Methods Patents Survive, But Not Bilski’s Patent
By a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that business methods are categorically unpatentable. By a unanimous vote, however, the Court has affirmed the PTO and Federal Circuit’s rulings rejecting Bilski’s patent claims on methods of hedging commodity risks. The Court also unanimously agreed that while the "machine or transformation" test adopted by the Federal Circuit is a useful indicator of patentability, it is not the sole test for patentability under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Although many had feared--and some had hoped--that all software patents were in jeopardy, the Court’s relatively narrow decision should allay those fears and dash those hopes.
Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company: Federal Circuit Holds That False Marking Statute Applies to Marking With Expired Patents, But Affirms Summary Judgment That Manufacturer Lacked Intent to Deceive the Public
The Federal Circuit held in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 2009-1547 (June 10, 2010), that the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, applies to products marked with expired patents, although the presumption of intent to deceive the public is weaker in such cases than in cases involving marking with patents that never covered the product.
Beware Patent Markers
IP Issues Affecting U.S. Corporations
Perkins Coie / Chicago, IL
Patent Litigation practice lunch and learn addressing key patent litigation issues and developments faced by in-house counsel. The program includes a sit down with the Honorable Virginia Kendall, who will provide a unique view of IP litigation from behind the bench, and panels made up of in-house counsel and our own patent litigation authorities.
IPBC Global 2016 / Barcelona
Managing IP U.S. PTAB Forum / Palo Alto, CA
The New 2015 PTAB
LexMachina Webcast
PLI's Patent Litigation 2015 / Chicago, IL
Alice in 101derland: Making Sense Out of Patentable Subject Matter
Westin Bellevue Hotel / Bellevue, WA 98004
Please join us for a CLE that will look at Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Register here.
University of Chicago Gleacher Center / Chicago, IL 60611
Back to Patent Basics: From What is a Patent to Avoiding Patent License Pitfalls
Boulevard Restaurant / San Francisco, CA
A company is often defined in the global marketplace by its success in procuring, managing and enforcing its intellectual property. But do you really understand your company’s patents?
This seminar will cover leading Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions from July 2013 to July 2014.
ACC Patent Committee Meeting: “This is Your Problem. No, this is Your Problem.” Dealing with Patent Indemnity Issues Between Vendors and Customers
Registration opens at 5:30PM. Program begins at 6:00PM. Cocktails & Hors d’oeuvres will be served after the program.
Registration and networking lunch opens at 11:30AM. Program begins at noon.
WISACCA CLE Program and Reception
Please join us in Madison for a Summer CLE Program and Reception at the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art presented by WISACCA.
Patent Litigation Defense Strategies for Corporate Counsel
Perkins Coie’s Chicago Patent Litigation group and FTI Consulting invite you to a patent litigation defense strategy seminar designed for in-house counsel. This half-day CLE program will address key components in contending with patent litigation and insight from the perspective of the in-house IP lawyer, the defense view and the plaintiffs’ bar. The program will conclude with lunch.
ITC Primer, Strategies and Remedies: When to File, How to Defend and Remedies
Networking lunch & registration open at 11:30 a.m.
A reception will follow this one hour program. Come for a great program and reception.
Strategies and Considerations for Successfully Litigating Patent Disputes in District Court and in the ITC - a 360 Degree View from the Bench, the Boardroom, and the Bar
Silicon Valley IP Law Association
Patent CLE In re Bilski
A panel discussion on the In re Bilski opinion. This was a complimentary breakfast CLE during which a highly-qualified panel discussed how the opinion changes prosecution and litigation of software and business method patents.
Hot Topics in the Parallel Universe of Patent Reexamination and Patent Litigation
The Co-Chairs of the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation invite you to participate in one of the Committee’s most popular programs—the Roundtables.
01.27.2010 - 01.28.2010
The Legal Issues Surrounding ELNs
SMI's 3rd Annual Conference - Electronic Laboratory Notebooks
Our Representative Patent Litigation Clients
We regularly represent industry leaders in their patent litigation.