Patent Infringement Claims, Opinions of Counsel and Attorney Client Privilege
|
|
- Alice Kelley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 presents Patent Infringement Claims, Opinions of Counsel and Attorney Client Privilege Best Practices for Opinion Letters After Seagate and Qualcomm A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features: Alison Tucher, Partner, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco Sanford E. Warren Jr., Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Dallas Mark P. Wine, Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Irvine, Calif. Tuesday, June 2, 2009 The conference begins at: 1 pm Eastern 12 pm Central 11 am Mountain 10 am Pacific The audio portion of this conference will be accessible by telephone only. Please refer to the dial in instructions ed to registrants to access the audio portion of the conference. CLICK ON EACH FILE IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN TO SEE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS. If no column is present: click Bookmarks or Pages on the left side of the window. If no icons are present: Click View, select Navigational Panels, and chose either Bookmarks or Pages. If you need assistance or to register for the audio portion, please call Strafford customer service at ext. 10
2 Proof of Willful Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, and Opinions of Counsel Alison Tucher June 2, Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising
3 Today s Presentation In re Seagate and proving willfulness at least... objective recklessness replaces affirmative duty of due care Broadcom v. Qualcomm and proving inducement failure to procure [an exculpatory] opinion may be probative of intent Waiver attorney-client privilege work-product immunity if confidential advice of counsel 2
4 Background: Old Willfulness Standard Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Imposed affirmative duty of due care to determine infringement after notice of patent rights Promoted opinion of counsel as primary defense to willfulness charge Resulted in (inconsistent) waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity 3
5 Background: Old Willfulness Standard Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Details factors to consider in totality of the circumstances Emphasizes accused s state of mind Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahreuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Allows no adverse inference from failure to procure or produce an opinion of counsel Sought to lift inappropriate burdens on the attorney-client relationship 4
6 Background: Did Opinions Matter? Opinions matter to judges, not juries, per empirical analysis by [Judge] K. Moore Willfulness alleged in 92.3% filed cases Willfulness found in 55.7% of cases finding infringement Juries virtually indifferent about opinions (55.8% willful with opinion; 56.1% without) Judges heavily influenced by reliance on an opinion (44.8% willful with opinion; 84.2% without) Judges enhanced damages or awarded fees in 60.6% of cases in which juries found willfulness, per her analysis of cases 5
7 Seagate: Summary of Decision New, tougher standard for willful infringement Requires at least a showing of objective recklessness Replaces affirmative duty of due care Ordinarily will depend on an infringer s prelitigation conduct Waiver based on opinion of counsel does not generally extend to: Attorney-client communications with trial counsel Work product of trial counsel 6
8 Seagate : Redefines Willfulness Overrules Underwater Devices definition of willfulness because the affirmative duty of due care is [M]ore akin to negligence (Slip Op. at 11.) Out of line with standard for willfulness in other contexts Copyright sister circuits enhance damages for willful infringement, including reckless disregard for whether conduct represents infringement Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. (June 4, 2007) Supreme Court construes Fair Credit Reporting Act provision for punitive damages upon showing of willful misconduct Common law treats actions in reckless disregard of the law as willful (citing Safeco.) 7
9 Seagate: Facts Trial counsel and opinion counsel retained pre-filing, but opinions received post-complaint Plaintiff moved to compel discovery of communications and work product of counsel, including trial counsel Opinion and trial counsel operated separately and independently at all times, although trial counsel presented opinions to Board (Slip Op. at 3.) 8
10 Seagate: Trial Court Decision Defendant waived the attorney-client privilege and work product protection for all communications between it and Opinion counsel Trial counsel In-house counsel Defendant must produce any requested documents and testimony concerning subject matter of opinions In camera review of documents related to trial strategy, but any advice from trial counsel undermining reasonableness of reliance warrants disclosure 9
11 Seagate s Holding: Willfulness Willfulness requires at least a showing of objective recklessness (Slip Op. at 12.) Patentee must show Step 1: By clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement Step 2: Objectively-defined risk was known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer 10
12 Seagate s Holding: Willfulness New Standard The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to th[e] objective inquiry in step 1 (Slip Op. at 12.) There is no affirmative obligation to obtain opinion of counsel (Id.) 11
13 Seagate: How will the standard be applied? Merits defense: Was non-infringement/invalidity/unenforceability defense plausible? Patent counsel to opine if claim construction went against you Process defense: Industry experts to compare your process to standards of fair commerce Evidence of re-examination may be relevant Defendant s state of mind (and thus opinion of counsel) may be relevant 12
14 Seagate s Dicta: Willfulness Prelitigation [W]illful infringement in the main must find its basis in prelitigation conduct. * (Slip Op. at 18.) [W]hen a complaint is filed, a patentee must have a good faith basis for alleging willful infringement. (Id. at 16.) Lawsuit Filed Pre-Seagate Focus Post-Seagate Focus * Post-filing conduct alone can suffice. (See id. at 17.) 13
15 Seagate s Dicta: Willfulness Post-Filing Preliminary injunction generally provides an adequate remedy for combating post-filing willful infringement (Slip Op. at 17.) A patentee who does not attempt to stop an accused infringer s activities in this manner should not be allowed to accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer s post-filing conduct. (Id.) Lawsuit Filed Pre-Filing: Willful Infringement Post-Filing: Preliminary Injunction 14
16 Inducement before Broadcom v. Qualcomm DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc): Inducement to infringe requires specific intent (defendant knew or should have known direct infringement would occur). Effective reliance upon an opinion of counsel negates specific intent. 15
17 Broadcom v. Qualcomm: Facts Broadcom alleged direct and indirect infringement Evidence at trial was of a failure to investigate, a failure to explore design around approaches, a failure to take remedial steps and of course a failure to seek legal advice (543 F.3d at 700) Qualcomm had secured opinions of counsel re invalidity of patents, but chose not to waive privilege 16
18 Broadcom v. Qualcomm: District Court Court instructed jury, When considering whether Qualcomm knew or should have known that the induced actions would constitute infringement... You may consider all of the circumstances, including whether or not Qualcomm obtained the advice of a competent lawyer Qualcomm did not ask for other factors to be stressed Broadcom awarded damages on inducement theory that Qualcomm s chips infringed in downstream uses 17
19 Broadcom v. Qualcomm: Holding Intent to induce infringement may be inferred from all of the circumstances Opinion of counsel evidence may reflect what infringer knew or should have known; failure to procure such an opinion may be probative of intent It would be manifestly unfair to allow opinion-of-counsel evidence to serve an exculpatory function, as was the case in DSU itself, and yet not permit patentees to identify failures to procure such advice Instruction was proper and substantial evidence supports finding of inducement 18
20 Broadcom v. Qualcomm: An Outlier? Inconsistent with Knorr-Bremse and similar cases How can jury consider failure to obtain legal advice without drawing adverse inference? Inconsistent with N.D. Cal. jury instruction on Willful Infringement which states, The totality of the circumstances comprises a number of facts which include... [whether [the Defendant] relied on competent legal advice,] This factor should only be included if the alleged infringer relies on a legal opinion as a defense to an allegation of willful infringement. 19
21 Broadcom v. Qualcomm: Implications Do something whenever you learn of a patent Opinions are valuable if inducement allegation is plausible Non-privileged record of decision to continue manufacturing may be a good alternative Understand risks and limits of waiver 20
22 Waiver: What Is Scope of Subject Matter? Do not expect to pick and choose among opinions Does waiver based on reliance on one issue (e.g., noninfringement) extend to other issues? Does it matter if opinion addresses multiple issues (e.g., non-infringement and invalidity)? 21
23 Seagate on Waiver: Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver should not extend to trial counsel Opinion and trial counsel serve different functions Opinion Counsel Inform business decisions Trial Counsel Case presentation 22
24 Seagate on Waiver: Attorney-Client Privilege Interests weigh against extending waiver to trial counsel Need to protect trial counsel s thoughts Willfulness generally depends on pre-filing conduct Because willful infringement in the main must find its basis in prelitigation conduct, communications of trial counsel have little, if any, relevance warranting their disclosure. Exception: chicanery (Slip Op. at 18.) 23
25 Seagate s Holding: Work Product Immunity Absent exceptional circumstances, waiver does not extend to work product Counsel s mental processes heavily protected Exception: chicanery 24
26 EchoStar on Waiver: Work-Product In re EchoStar Communications Corporation, 448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Relying on in-house counsel s advice waives privilege with regard to any attorney-client communications relating to the same subject matter No waiver of work product that was not communicated, unless it refers to an attorney-client communication 25
27 Does Waiver Reach In-House Counsel? In re EchoStar Defendant relied on opinions from in-house and outside counsel Defendant and its in-house counsel treated as separate entities In re Seagate Defendant relied on opinion only from outside counsel Does waiver extend to: Communications between client and in-house counsel? In-house counsel s work product? We do not address the trial court s discovery orders pertaining to Seagate s in-house counsel. (Slip Op. at 3 n.2.) Depends on function, timing, and circumstances 26
28 When Are Opinions Useful? Inform business strategy (without waiver) Taking a license Attempting to design-around a patent Outsource analysis and prior art search before litigation Resources Tough arguments Credibility (with waiver) Defend against inducement claims (with waiver) 27
29 If You Rely on an Opinion of Counsel... Limit on waiver is not an absolute rule ; district courts free to exercise discretion in unique circumstances Inadequate separation between opinion and trial counsel Seagate s opinion counsel operated separately and independently of trial counsel When might communication become chicanery? Who s the trial witness? 28
30 Thank you Sf
31 Post-Seagate/Broadcom Court Treatment Sanford E. Warren, Jr. Partner 2009 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All Rights Reserved.
32 Objective high likelihood Must have supporting evidence for objective prong Franklin Elec. Co. v. Dover Corp. ( W.D. Wis. Nov. 2007) Not willful when only evidence of second prong is offered Significant support for noninfringement position Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 2008) No evidence of objective recklessness, only on subjective evidence Noninfringement and invalidity arguments were substantial, reasonable and far from the sort that an objectively reckless infringer would rely upon 2
33 Objective high likelihood Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data (N.D. Cal. Oct 2007) Engineer aware of possible infringement In house counsel aware of similarity to product No enhance damage due to closeness of case on claim construction, invalidity and noninfringement Plaintiff might have lost if Seagate was applied Depomed, Inc. v. Ivax Corp. (N.D. Cal. Dec 2007) No reasonable belief that patent is invalid Patent issued before sale of infringing product giving ample time to investigate License of patent to 3 rd party well publicized 3
34 Objective high likelihood Trading Techn. Int l Inc. v. espeed Inc (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2008) Totality of circumstances still applies Knowledge of patent alone not enough for willfulness Patent issued after sale of product Focus on post-patent conduct No further sale after knowledge of patent Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar 2008) Utilized plaintiff s advice, support, expertise to create and market infringing product Put on notice from variety of sources Post-filing conduct cannot be sole basis but part of totality of circumstances analysis Continued to sell a year after court found infringement 4
35 Objective high likelihood Northbrook Digital Corp. v. Browster, Inc. (D. Minn. Aug 2008) took steps to reduce or eliminate any damages by removing infringing features from product Allow distribution website to become non-functional Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc. (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2009) Even if analysis is conducted, jury was free to disbelieve the occurrence, accuracy and reasonableness of analysis researching plaintiff s product when developing infringing product Plaintiff s product marked with patent number at the time defendant conducted analysis No procedure to investigate and did not investigate once notified 5
36 Objective high likelihood legitimate defenses Dicta: Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2008) Legitimate defense to infringement and credible invalidity arguments demonstrate lack of objective high likelihood Jury found several claims invalid Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc. (E.D. TX Apr. 2009) Infringement and invalidity arguments entirely rejected by jury 6
37 Objective high likelihood legitimate defenses TGIP Inc. v. AT&T Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2007) Even though alleged infringer ultimately did not prove its invalidity defense, its position was hardly objectively unreasonable. Eaton Corp. v. ZF Mertor LLC (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2008) Invalidity finding is not final and not a jury verdict, but as a matter of law 7
38 Objective high likelihood legitimate defenses Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbot Lab (D. N.J. Jun 2008) Invalidity defense not very strong and rejected by PTO Did not contest infringement at trial Infringement arguments of other patents not convincing Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Asscs., Inc. (D. Az. July 2008) Invalidating matter already considered by PTO required added burden to overcome deference Same references PTO previously found not invalidating 8
39 Objective high likelihood legitimate defenses Honeywell Int l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. (D. Del. Nov. 2008) Noninfringement is found under claim construction and finding of anticipation of several claims provide legitimate defenses for lack of objectively high likelihood 9
40 Known or should have known (subjective) Trading Techn. Int l Inc. v. espeed Inc (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2008) Focus on pre-patent conduct No egregious copying when mere mimicking functionality Honeywell Int l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. (D. Del. Nov. 2008) A patent review before entering market with outside counsel not reckless Indemnification refutes second prong of Seagate Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbot Lab. (D. N.J. Jun 2008) Insure itself against liability exposure via indemnification Sold business unit to avoid current & potential IP issues 10
41 Design-around Trading Techn. Int l Inc. v. espeed Inc (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2008) Immediately redesign after knowledge of patent Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbot Lab. (D. N.J. Jun 2008) Not willing to change until further investigation 11
42 Opinion of counsel Energy Transp. Group Inc. v. William Demant Holding (D. Del. 2008) Nothing in Seagate forbids jury to consider whether defendant obtained advice of counsel as part of totality of circumstances Cohesive Tech. Inc. v. Waters Corp. (D. Mass. Aug. 2007) Opinion is obtained in good faith even if done by in house counsel Obtained patent, conducted experiment, consult in-house counsel and scientist VNUS Med. Tech. v. Diomed Holdings, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2007) Preliminary assessment with no legal analysis does not foreclose a finding of willful infringement Relied on conclusory opinion with no legal or factual basis 12
43 Opinion of counsel No stay of discovery of second prong pending ruling on the first prong Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 2007) Prelitigation communication to in-house opinion counsel still discoverable if relied on for advice of counsel defense Intervet Inc. v. Merial Limited (D.D.C. Jun 2008) No opinion of counsel defense has been asserted, discovery continues VMane FILS S.A. v. Int l Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. (D. N.J. Mar 2008) Nothing in Seagate requires bifurcation of discovery Trial court discretion in unique circumstances to extend waiver 13
44 Scope of Waiver SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, LLC (E.D. Mich. Jan 2008) Uncommunicated work product is not waived Post-filing communication with trial counsel has little bearing on willfulness Confidential communication not relating to invalidity, unenforceability and noninfringement remain privileged 14
45 Pre-Seagate Jury Instructions Voda v. Cordis Corp. (Fed. Circ. Aug. 2008) Not harmless error when Design around Obtained opinion of counsel on redesign Remand for new trial or determine sufficiency of evidence as a matter of law Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int l, Inc. (D. Del. Dec. 2008) Granted motion for new trial to extent of willful infringement, because presentation of issues in this case would not result in different juries considering the same issues, no jury issue in claim construction and no confusion of expert testimony by jury 15
46 Pre-Seagate Jury Instructions Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (D. Del. Jan 2009) Harmless error when reasonable jury could find objective recklessness Knowledge of patent and enforcement Failed license negotiations Continue to make and sell products 16
47 Best Practices for Use of Opinions of Counsel Post-Seagate and Broadcom Mark P. Wine Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Irvine, California June 2, 2009
48 Everything Relating to Opinions of Counsel Has Changed Over the Past Five Years.. The process of change began with the Knorr-Bremse decision by the Federal Circuit in 2004 eliminating the adverse inference for failure to obtain and use an opinion of counsel. The Seagate decision established an entirely new approach for assessing willfulness in a patent case and seemed at the time to foreshadow a decline in the importance of opinions of counsel. The Broadcom decision created an exception to Seagate that continues to cause some confusion as to whether Knorr- Bremse really meant what it said. Recent district court opinions are all over the map regarding the application of the new standards for willfulness. 2
49 Except one. No opinion has criticized or implicated the obtaining of an opinion of counsel as a prudent business decision. 3
50 Opinions of counsel continue to have an important role outside litigation Early stage companies seeking investors or financing. Freedom to operate opinions. Independent verification of design around options. Development of a patent strategy for established companies. Sarbanes-Oxley compliance issues. Licensing negotiations. 4
51 The Broadcom decision and some recent district court opinions have revived the use of opinions in a litigation context Inducement of infringement q How is this predictable in advance? q We know from Seagate that opinions obtained after litigation commenced are of little value. q As a practical matter, a prudent company is going to get an opinion of counsel whenever it is conceivable that an inducement claim could be made e.g. where the company is the manufacturer or supplier of components or application software. 5
52 Other litigation uses for opinions exist as well. To establish the existence of a meritorious defense to infringement claims or affirmative claims against patent holder; or to support or defend against a Rule 11 motion. To be used by a defendant with indemnity rights. To act as evidence of non-willfulness in the totality of the circumstances. To establish compliance with standards of fair commerce. To rebut claim on chicanery? 6
53 When in doubt..get an opinion. There is no downside for obtaining an opinion other than that cost. The benefit of having one is likely to outweigh the cost in almost every instance. If you are are being told by the client that an opinion is unnecessary in the particular field..be doubtful. If the client indicates after counseling that the risk of harm doesn t justify the expenditure.. write a memo to the file. 7
54 Guidelines to follow for obtaining opinions that will be useful in all contexts. Obtain the opinion from qualified patent counsel. Avoid the use of anyone who might appear for you in court. Keep the potential audience or audiences in mind when preparing. Beware of the paper trail you are creating. Establish a corporate policy on use of opinions. Don t bother with post-filing opinions of counsel. 8
55 Global Office Locations BEIJING Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Beijing Representative Office 22 nd Floor, South Tower Beijing Kerry Centre 1 Guang Hua Road Chaoyang District Beijing People s Republic of China Tel: Fax: BERLIN Orrick Hölters & Elsing Kurfürstendamm Berlin Germany Tel: +49 (0) Fax: +49 (0) DÜSSELDORF Orrick Hölters & Elsing Immermannstrasse Düsseldorf Germany Tel: +49 (0) Fax: +49 (0) FRANKFURT Orrick Hölters & Elsing Friedrichstrasse Frankfurt Germany Tel: +49 (0) Fax: +49 (0) HONG KONG Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in association with Coudert Brothers 43rd Floor, Gloucester Tower The Landmark 15 Queen s Road Central, Hong Kong Tel: Fax: LONDON Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Tower 42, Level Old Broad Street London EC2N 1HQ United Kingdom Tel: Fax: LOS ANGELES Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA U.S.A. Tel: Fax: MILAN Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Via Visconti di Modrone, Milan Italy Tel: Fax: MOSCOW Orrick (CIS) LLC 7 Gasheka Street Moscow Russia Tel: Fax: NEW YORK Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 666 Fifth Avenue New York, NY U.S.A. Tel: Fax: ORANGE COUNTY Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 4 Park Plaza Suite 1600 Irvine, CA U.S.A. Tel: Fax: PACIFIC NORTHWEST Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 900 Seattle, WA U.S.A. Tel: Fax: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 1120 NW Couch Street Suite 200 Portland, OR U.S.A. Tel: Fax: PARIS Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 31, avenue Pierre 1er de Serbie Paris Cedex 16 France Tel: Fax: ROME Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Piazza della Croce Rossa, Rome Italy Tel: Fax: SACRAMENTO Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA U.S.A. Tel: Fax: SAN FRANCISCO Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA U.S.A. Tel: Fax: SHANGHAI Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Shanghai Representative Office 47/F Park Place 1601 Nanjing Road West Shanghai People s Republic of China Tel: Fax: SILICON VALLEY Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA U.S.A. Tel Fax TAIPEI Orrick Foreign Legal Affairs Attorneys at Law Suite G, 12th Floor No. 167 Tun Hua North Road Taipei Taiwan Tel Fax TOKYO Orrick Tokyo Law Offices a gaikokuho joint enterprise Izumi Garden Tower, 28th Floor 6-1 Roppongi 1-Chome Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan Tel Tel WASHINGTON, D.C. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP The Orrick Building at Columbia Center th Street NW Washington, D.C U.S.A. Tel Fax
Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Email Q&A Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced
More informationJoshua D. Curry Jennifer Lowndes Ian Wasser Malvern ( Griff ) U. Griffin III
26 OPINION LETTERS, REPRESENTATION ISSUES, AND THE IMPACT OF THE SEAGATE AND KNORR-BREMSE DECISIONS Joshua D. Curry Jennifer Lowndes Ian Wasser Malvern ( Griff ) U. Griffin III Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationManaging Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Managing Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s
More informationInfringement Assertions In The New World Order
Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
More informationThe Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH
The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH Steven M. Auvil, Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Steve Auvil
More informationDefending Against Inducement Claims Post-Commil
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Defending Against Inducement Claims Post-Commil Law360,
More informationProtecting Privileged Communications of In-house Counsel, Post-Halo
Protecting Privileged Communications of In-house Counsel, Post-Halo Presented to Date: January 10, 2018 2018 Kilpatrick Townsend Outline 1. A hypothetical 2. Refresh on the law: Willful infringement for
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 790 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 790 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationThe Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation
The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation Presented by the IP Litigation Group of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 2007 Background on Simpson Thacher Founded 1884 in New York City Now, over 750
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationThe New Reality of Willful Infringement Post-Halo. Copyright Baker Botts All Rights Reserved.
The New Reality of Willful Infringement Post-Halo Copyright Baker Botts 2017. All Rights Reserved. Before June 2016, Seagate shielded jury from most willfulness facts Two Seagate prongs: 1. Objective prong
More informationCase 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:06-cv-02304-FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY V. MANE FILS S.A., : Civil Action No. 06-2304 (FLW) : Plaintiff, : : v. : : M E
More informationIntellectual Property
Intellectual Property The Seagate Conundrum: Risks and Rewards of Raising the Defense of Advice of Counsel to a Charge of Willful Patent Infringement By David L. Applegate & Paul J. Ripp* Imagine that
More informationThe Willfulness Pendulum Swings Back: How Seagate Helps Level the Playing Field
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-2008 The Willfulness
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
e-watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corporation Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION e-watch INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0347 AVIGILON CORPORATION,
More informationRecent Trends in Patent Damages
Recent Trends in Patent Damages Presentation for The Austin Intellectual Property Law Association Jose C. Villarreal May 19, 2015 These materials reflect the personal views of the speaker, are not legal
More informationCase 1:12-cv PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Document 1769 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, Consolidated Civil Action No. v. 12-11935-PBS
More informationFederal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct
Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct SUMMARY On May 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Therasense, Inc.
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationWhat s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision. June 2016
What s Willful Now? The Practical Impact of the Supreme Court s Halo v. Pulse Patent Willfulness Decision Andrew J. Pincus apincus@mayerbrown.com Brian A. Rosenthal brosenthal@mayerbrown.com June 2016
More informationTHE EVOLVING ROLE OF OPINIONS OF PATENT COUNSEL IN FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES. Lynda J. Oswald *
THE EVOLVING ROLE OF OPINIONS OF PATENT COUNSEL IN FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES by Lynda J. Oswald * Over the past few years, an unlikely intersection has emerged in U.S. patent jurisprudence in cases addressing
More informationSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S.
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. The 10 th Annual Generics, Supergenerics, and Patent Strategies Conference London, England May 16, 2007 Provided by: Charles R. Wolfe, Jr. H. Keeto
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationUPDATE ON CULPABLE MENTAL STATES AND RELATED ETHICAL AND PRIVILEGE IMPLICATIONS IN FEDERAL CIVIL LITIGATION. April 23, 2010
UPDATE ON CULPABLE MENTAL STATES AND RELATED ETHICAL AND PRIVILEGE IMPLICATIONS IN FEDERAL CIVIL LITIGATION April 23, 2010 David G. Barker and Scott C. Sandberg 1 The culpable mental state required for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REALTIME DATA LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION et al., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationAlert Memo. The Facts
Alert Memo FEBRUARY 27, 2012 Second Circuit Holds District Court Must Mandatorily Abstain from Deciding Parmalat State Court Action Related to U.S. Ancillary Bankruptcy Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2),
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. HTC Corporation et al Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC, Plaintiff, v. HTC CORPORATION and HTC
More informationKnorr-Bremse: The Federal Circuit Overrules Its Precedent and Reshapes Willfulness
Knorr-Bremse: The Federal Circuit Overrules Its Precedent and Reshapes Willfulness On September 13, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled decades-old precedent and reshaped the law
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationInjunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants
Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants AIPLA 2014 Spring Meeting Colin G. Sandercock* * These slides have been prepared for the AIPLA 2014 Spring
More informationIn Re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 23 Issue 1 Article 4 January 2008 In Re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness Danny Prati Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COOPER LIGHTING, LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. l:16-cv-2669-mhc CORDELIA LIGHTING, INC. and JIMWAY, INC.,
More informationThe Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends. By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan
The Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends By Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan I. INTRODUCTION The concept of enhanced damages in not new to patent law. The Patent
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1241 September 28, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Practical Implications of the America Invents Act on United States Patent Litigation This Client Alert addresses the key
More informationon significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the
Number 836 March 17, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Wyeth v. Levine and the Contours of Conflict Preemption Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The decision in Wyeth reinforces the importance
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationNew York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements
New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements April 26, 2010 New York s highest court recently decided a case of first impression
More informationSECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION
SECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION Michael Delikat mdelikat@orrick.com Jill Rosenberg jrosenberg@orrick.com Lisa Lupion llupion@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 W 52 nd Street New
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationInducing Infringement: Inferring Knowledge and Intent from a Finding of Deliberate Indifference by Ronald J. Brown and Bridget M.
Inducing Infringement: Inferring Knowledge and Intent from a Finding of Deliberate Indifference by Ronald J. Brown and Bridget M. Hayden Ronald J. Brown and Bridget M. Hayden are lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney,
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationLitigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit
Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit Paul Brown, Partner, London 4 September 2013 What will this talk cover? What factors does a litigant need to consider when litigating patents
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationFALSE CLAIMS ACT: District Court Rules That Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act Suspends False Claims Act s Six-Year Statute of Limitations
FraudMail Alert Please click here to view our archives FALSE CLAIMS ACT: District Court Rules That Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act Suspends False Claims Act s Six-Year Statute of Limitations What
More informationBrian D. Coggio Ron Vogel. Should A Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Negate Induced Infringement? (The Trouble with Commil is DSU)
Brian D. Coggio Ron Vogel Should A Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Negate Induced Infringement? (The Trouble with Commil is DSU) In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, the Federal Circuit (2-1) held
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1390 JOHN FORCILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationClient Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy
Number 1438 December 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 0-cv-0-MMC
More informationCase 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071
Case 2:12-cv-00147-WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff,
More information2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo
2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo Law360, New York (January 18, 2017, 12:35 PM EST) This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationInduced and Divided Infringement: Updates and Strategic Views
14 th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute Induced and Divided Infringement: Updates and Strategic Views Steven C. Carlson Silicon Valley December 13, 2013 Alison M. Tucher San Francisco Induced Infringement
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. -CV-1-H (BGS) ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART
More informationBusiness Method Patents on the Chopping Block?
Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? ACCA, San Diego Chapter General Counsel Roundtable and All Day MCLE Eric Acker and Greg Reilly Morrison & Foerster LLP San Diego, CA 2007 Morrison & Foerster
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationWORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING
43 rd World Intellectual Property Congress Seoul, Korea WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING October 21, 2012 John Kim* Admitted to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia,
More informationBroadcam Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. 543 F.3D 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 19 Issue 1 Fall 2008 Article 9 Broadcam Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. 543 F.3D 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Ryan Schermerhorn Follow this and additional
More informationPatent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai. EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013
Patent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013 What I will cover Considerations for patent litigation in China Anatomy of
More informationInfringement pt. 3; Design Patents; ST: Patent Opinions
PATENT LAW Tim Clise CLASS 11 Infringement pt. 3; Design Patents; ST: Patent Opinions 1 Infringement pt. 3 Indirect Infringement 2 3 Basis [Indirect infringement exists to protect patent rights from subversion
More informationMIP International Patent Forum 2013 Russia Focus
MIP International Patent Forum 2013 Russia Focus Natalia Gulyaeva, Partner Head of IP, Media & Technology, Hogan Lovells CIS 16 April 2013 Patents as a key to business expansion: produced in Russia Russian
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1357, -1376, 02-1221, -1256 KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH, v. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, DANA CORPORATION, and Defendant-Appellant,
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION VOILÉ MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION vs. LOUIS DANDURAND and BURNT MOUNTAIN DESIGNS, LLC, Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationPatent Litigation in the Energy Sector. Mitigating the risk of willful infringement and treble damages
Patent Litigation in the Energy Sector Mitigating the risk of willful infringement and treble damages July 18, 2018 James L. Duncan III Counsel, IP Litigation Group 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This
More informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly Register at www.acc.com/education/mym17 If you have any technical problems, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Recent Developments in Patent and Post-Grant
More informationThe 100-Day Program at the ITC
The 100-Day Program at the ITC TECHNOLOGY August 9, 2016 Tuhin Ganguly gangulyt@pepperlaw.com David J. Shaw shawd@pepperlaw.com IN LIGHT OF AUDIO PROCESSING HARDWARE, IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT, WITH RESPECT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. :1-cv-01-PSG 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPLE, INC., et al., APPLE, INC., et al., (Re: Docket No. 1) Case No. :1-cv-01-PSG (Re:
More informationAlert Memo. I. Background
Alert Memo NEW YORK JUNE 25, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Limits Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Security Transactions Made on Domestic Exchanges or in the United States On June 24, 2010, the
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationSupreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement
More informationSupreme Court Finds the Discover Bank Rule Preempted by FAA
To read the decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, please click here. Supreme Court Finds the Discover Bank Rule Preempted by FAA April 28, 2011 INTRODUCTION Yesterday, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1541, 04-1137, -1213 EVIDENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellant, and PEROXYDENT GROUP, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Counterclaim
More informationAn Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
More informationIs Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?
October 16, 2015 Practice Groups: Patent Office Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Managemnet IP Litigation Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review? By Mark G. Knedeisen and Mark R. Leslie
More informationCase 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986
Case 6:12-cv-00499-MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case
More informationPETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 09- IN THE ~upr~m~ ~ogrt of th~ t~init~h ~tat~s GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES INC. and PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES, LTD., Petitioners, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationFTC's Proposed Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule And Market Manipulation Workshop
FTC's Proposed Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule And Market Manipulation Workshop Washington, DC November 19, 2008 On November 6, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) held a workshop in which its
More informationIntent Standard for Induced Patent Infringement: Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
Intent Standard for Induced Patent Infringement: Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Brian T. Yeh Legislative Attorney August 30, 2011 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of
More informationNavigating the Post-Grant Landscape
Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape John Alemanni Matthew Holohan 2017 Kilpatrick Townsend Overview Substantial Changes Proposed Scope of Estoppel Remains Uncertain Appellate Issues and Cases Covered Business
More informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department
Number 1171 April 7, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Changes in Adverse Event Reporting The Court s refusal to adopt a bright-line rule
More informationSupreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement
Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Courts May Award Foreign Lost Profits Where Infringement Is Based on the Export of Components of Patented Invention Under
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 10 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationAlert Memo. New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms In Pari Delicto Defense for Outside Professionals
Alert Memo NOVEMBER 5, 2010 New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms In Pari Delicto Defense for Outside Professionals When corporate fraud or other misdeeds are disclosed, investment banks, auditors and other
More information2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr.
2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr. January 7, 2016 knobbe.com Patents: Belief of invalidity not a defense to inducement Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (May 26, 2015)
More informationCase 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18
--------------------- ----- Case 1:13-cv-02027-JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x COGNEX CORPORATION;
More information'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
More informationMarvell s Opposition to CMU s Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages [Dkt. 833]
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 876-3 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 37 Marvell s Opposition to CMU s Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages [Dkt. 833] May 1-2, 2013 United States
More informationReexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationA Back-To-Basics Approach To Patent Damages Law
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Back-To-Basics Approach To Patent Damages
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationNorthern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules Law360,
More information