2014 Designs Litigation Patent Law 
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
20-891 (CVSG requested May 3, 2021); Res Judicata and the Patent-Specific Kessler Doctrine : PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. 20-1394 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); Undermining Jury Decisions : Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue.
More Than Your Mark
AUGUST 20, 2021
At its core, 3-D printing uses computer code in a computer-aided design (CAD) file to instruct specially designed printers to print three-dimensional physical objects one layer at a time. The functionalities and any new and unobvious structures created by 3-D printing technologies may be the subject of a utility or a design patent.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Patently-O
JULY 8, 2022
David Tropp sued Travel Sentry for patent infringement back in 2006. That was the same year that I first taught a patent law class. Back then, eligibility was almost an unknown concept in patent litigation. 208 (2014). 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. Tropp Petition.
The IP Law Blog
MAY 7, 2021
285, determining plaintiff’s litigation positions were not baseless even after a granting of summary judgment of noninfringement that “was not a close call.” . As way of background, in patent infringement cases, Courts are authorized to award “reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” in “exceptional cases.”
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 20, 2023
208 (2014). These were clearly watershed cases that dramatically changed the landscape of patent law and patent litigation. But, those motions are designed to be based simply on the pleadings. Prometheus , 566 U.S. 66 (2012); Alice Corp. CLS Bank International , 573 U.S. 12(b)(6) motion.
Patently-O
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
The decision is significant as it is the first by the Fifth Circuit to address the licensing of standards-essential patents and the meaning of “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) licensing terms, adding to the growing body of jurisprudence already issued by the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuits in this area. 2014), Microsoft v.
LexBlog IP
AUGUST 31, 2021
Ericsson and HTC had entered cross-license agreements in 2003, 2008 and 2014. Under the 2014 license agreement, HTC paid Ericsson a lump sum of $75 million regardless of HTC’s phone sales, which effectively was $2.50 In 2016, just before the 2014 license expired, HTC and Ericsson began negotiating renewal of the license. .”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
95 
Let's personalize your content