On November 15, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH et al., 2018-1863, that provides additional guidance on the patentability of data processing-related claims. The decision also distinguishes several cases in which
IP Litigation Current
IP Litigation Current, published by Foley & Lardner LLP, focuses on developments and issues in intellectual property litigation. The blog covers topics such as trade dress protection, design patent obviousness standards, procedural aspects of International Trade Commission investigations, and proposals for specialized patent dispute courts. It addresses legal strategies, regulatory changes, and case law impacting patent, trademark, and trade dress enforcement. The content includes analysis of administrative and judicial proceedings, evidentiary practices, and policy discussions relevant to IP litigators and stakeholders.
Latest from IP Litigation Current - Page 2
Antitrust Scrutiny of Technology Companies Continues to Expand
Governmental and private antitrust actions against technology companies expanded in 2018 and 2019, particularly relative to electronics and pharmaceutical companies. This post provides an overview of several important decisions relative to those sectors. Consistent with the purpose of the antitrust…
Permanent Injunctions for Non-Practicing Entities in Patent Cases
Many patent practitioners assume that non-practicing entities cannot obtain permanent injunctions in patent cases. This is attributed to the belief that NPEs fail the four-factor test set out by the Supreme Court in eBay. Given that belief, it is surprising for…
Challenging IPR Institutions Following Federal Court Decision in In re: Power Integrations Inc.
By Publisher
Practitioners should be aware that challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR got even harder after a recent Federal Circuit decision. While the Supreme Court has already made clear that challenges to denial of an institution decision…
Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY-4), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48) introduced H.R. 6264, the “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018.” The bill ambitiously seeks to curtail or repeal numerous provisions of the 2011…
When Can a Company Be Liable for Its Vendor’s Copyright or Patent Infringement?: Hollywood Studios’ IP Headache
The case of Rearden LLC et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al., Nos. 3:17-cv-04006, 04191 & 04192 (N.D. Cal.), has been covered more in the Hollywood Reporter than in legal publications, but it is both a “Hollywood story”…
False Food Advertising Claims Require Plausibility, Not Possibility
Earlier this year, in “Is the “Food Court Closing,” we reported indications of a change in the leanings of federal courts in California when viewing class action false advertising allegations regarding food and beverage products at the motion to dismiss…
Insurers Must Pay Cost of Defending Case Stemming from Use of Famous Marathoner’s Name
Vibram – seller of the “FiveFinger” shoes – took an intellectual property insurance coverage dispute to the highest court of Massachusetts, and won. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the insurers must pay Vibram’s cost of defending a…
Federal Circuit’s Decision in University of Florida Research Foundation v. General Electric Raises Questions with Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
By Daniel Rose
Subject matter eligibility jurisprudence under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been in flux in recent years, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On February 26, 2019, the Federal Circuit in University…