Filewrapper

Jury Returns Verdict for Apple in Patent Infringement Suit

On Friday, May 2, 2014 a jury found Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") liable for infringing two patents owned by Apple, Inc. ("Apple"). The two patents are U.S. Patent No.5,946,647, which is directed to systems and methods that analyze text for things that can be hyperlinked, e.g., email addresses, websites, and phone numbers, and then provides […]

Continue Reading →

MVS Filewrapper – Blog:Supreme Court Revises Standards for Sanctions in Exceptional Patent Cases

Two U.S. Supreme Court opinions issued today—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.—have changed the framework for which exceptional cases are analyzed under § 285 of the Patent Act. For years, the controlling case with regard to § 285 of the Patent Act was […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – July 10, 2013

· InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit affirms importance of secondary indicia of non-obviousness

The Federal Circuit has recently decided the case ofPower Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. Power Integrations, Inc. (Power) sued Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fairchild) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of Power’s four patents covering chargers for mobile phones. In a bifurcated trial, the claims of the […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – April 5, 2013

· In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. the Federal Circuit clarified several points relating to claim construction, determinations of non-obviousness, and calculation of damages. The court confirmed that claiming a “circuit” in conjunction with a sufficiently definite structure for performing the identified function is adequate to bar means-plus-function claiming. The court also […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – January 23, 2013

· In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks—opposed the […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – Janurary 14, 2013

· The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot. […]

Continue Reading →

Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict

Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of […]

Continue Reading →

Remittitur without new trial requires legal error, not error as a matter of law

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's reduction of the jury's damages award, remanding the case for a new trial on damages, and affirmed the jury's verdict of willful infringement and the district court's award of attorney fees under § 285. The district court held there was insufficient evidence as a […]

Continue Reading →

Anticipation no longer the epitome of obviousness? Claims can be anticipated but nonobvious

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's finding of non-willful infringement for one product, reversed its claim construction and related finding of noninfringement of a second product, and vacated its judgment as a matter of law on the issue of anticipation. The district court, at the charge conference near the end of the jury […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up