JD Supra Law

DECEMBER 1, 2021

In its second decision between the parties on this topic, the court has dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing in Apple Inc. Qualcomm Inc., No 20-1683 (Fed. 10, 2021) (“Apple II”). By: Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Licensing 52

Licensing Litigation Settlement Art 52

Patently-O

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

Qualcomm Incorporated , No. Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. Daktronics, Inc., 21-438 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); and.

Patent Law 95

Patent Law Law Patent Litigation 95

The IPKat

JUNE 25, 2021

This year’s highlights include: 20+ speakers, including experts from WIPO, Nokia, Cisco, Sisvel, ETSI, Qualcomm, Bird & Bird and Ericsson Focus on how to navigate the rapidly changing standards and patents legal landscape IPKat readers are entitled to a 15% discount in the registration fee using the code FKW83298IPKE.

Registration 52

Registration IP Law Patent 52

The IPKat

SEPTEMBER 21, 2022

Returning to the trendy IP topic de-jour, the panel discussed the copyright aspects of NFTs and their application to decades old commercial agreements in Miramax, LLC v. Jurisdiction in the global metaverse was another topic that presented intriguing questions and as of yet few answers. Quentin Tarantino et al.

IP 76

IP Reporting Designs Design 76

Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 26, 2022

Topics: Enablement / Written Description (All three are biotech / pharma): 3 Cases; Infringement (FDA Labeling): 1 Case; Anticipation (On Sale Bar): 1 Case; Double Patenting (Still the law?) Qualcomm Incorporated , No. ” Mark Fleming (Wilmer) represents Apple and Jonathan Franklin (Norton Rose) represents Qualcomm.

Patent Law 125

Patent Law Law Patent Invention 125

Patently-O

FEBRUARY 27, 2024

Qualcomm Inc., This new guidance avoids that topic and instead instructs examiners on how to marshal their evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. .’ To be sure, the Federal Circuit continues to use the word ‘motivation’ in its obviousness jurisprudence. Quoting Intel Corp. 4th 784 (Fed.

Art 121

Art Invention Patent Application Patent 121

LexBlog IP

NOVEMBER 30, 2021

In its second decision between the parties on this topic, the court has dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing in Apple Inc. Qualcomm Inc. , The saga began with Qualcomm accusing Apple of infringing several patents in district court. Qualcomm Inc. , No 20-1683 (Fed. 10, 2021) (“Apple II”).

Settlement 52

Settlement Licensing Litigation Art 52