Author Archives: Dan Liu

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in Life Technologies v. Promega ruled that “a single component does not constitute a substantial portion of the components that can give rise to liability under §271(f)(1).”[1]  This ruling limits the reach of … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Life Technologies v. Promega: Supreme Court Limits Infringement Liability under Section 271(f)(1)

As the Supreme Court kicked off October Term 2016, it continues to show a strong interest in patent law, granting three petitions so far with more petitions to be considered. Samsung v. Apple – Design Patents Damages The first is … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2016 Preview – Patent Cases

In a recent landmark ruling, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s ban on “disparaging” marks violates the First Amendment.[1]  Section 2(a) provides that no trademark shall be refused registration “unless it consists … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademark & Trade Dress | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Freedom of Speech Protects “Disparaging” Marks, Federal Circuit Holds

Recently, the  Federal Circuit, for a second time this year, evaluated infringement of a method claim.[1]  The Court, vacating the recent panel decision in May, outlined the governing framework for direct infringement of a method claim.  It held that direct … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The En Banc Federal Circuit in Akamai v. Limelight Broadens the Scope of Direct Infringement under Section 271(a)

On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,[1] finding that Sequenom’s patent claiming methods of using cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) for prenatal diagnosis test is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal Circuit’s Latest Patent Subject Matter Decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom Renders Many Biotech Patents at Risk

On May 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued the much-anticipated decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. following a remand from the Supreme Court.[1]  The Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that “direct infringement liability of a … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Reaffirms Single Entity Rule for Divided Infringement under Section 271(a) in Akamai, Making Method Claims Difficult to Enforce

On April 10, 2015, in a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals–Judge Moore writing–vacated and remanded U.S. District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’s 2014 decision denying fees, finding that it “cannot find a basis to support the court’s … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Held District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Award Attorneys’ Fees

In In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC,[1] the first ever appeal of the final written decision from an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”),[2] the Federal Circuit decided two novel and … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Not So Fast: Split Federal Circuit Panel Sided with PTO on Novel IPR Issues

For patent infringement defendants filing an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petition to challenge the validity of the patents asserted against them has become popular, largely because of the high rate of patents rendered invalid as a result of the petitions.  … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , | Comments Off on Joinder Denied: The Ins And Outs Of Filing And Joining IPR Petitions On A Timely Basis

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has issued four decisions on patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the most recent decision, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Court continued the restrictive approach set forth in its own precedents … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Sea Change after Alice: Recent Court Decisions Show Patents Are Vulnerable under Section 101 Attack