Tag Archives: patent case

On March 9, 2016, in Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, C.A. No. 07C-12-134-JRL, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware issued a decision on a motion to dismiss for violating state champerty and … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Litigation Financing Is Not Champerty: Delaware Confirms That Litigation Financing Is Here To Stay

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee.  One of the questions presented to the Court was the appropriate claim construction standard for inter partes review (IPR).  The fundamental dispute, as … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Cuozzo Conundrum: Prosecution History Estoppel Remains An Open Issue

Through its recent decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.[1], the Supreme Court discarded the mechanical two-part test governing enhanced damages fashioned by the Federal Circuit in Seagate, and gave district courts broad discretion to decide when to … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Relaxes The Standard For Increased Patent Damages

As most practitioners know, even a duly issued patent can be invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if the patent’s claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea.  Yet, trying to anticipate whether a patent claim … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 35 U.S.C. § 101 – If At First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again

On March 23, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, along with co-presenter, Jason Angell of Freitas Angell & Weinberg, LLP, presented a one hour talk on changes in patent litigation to participants in a one day conference sponsored by the … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Glaser Weil Partner Mieke Malmberg Speaking at “Patent Disputes for Our Time: New Realities, New Approaches”, Presented by the State Bar of California

Summary In its February 12, 2016 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed two issues: (1) whether patent exhaustion applies when a patented item is sold subject to an express single-use/no-resale restriction, and then … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. – The Latest on Patent Exhaustion

On February 11, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, presented a one hour webinar sponsored by the State Bar of California on the use of the Federal Circuit’s Model order on electronic discovery in patent cases. Many times parties stipulate … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Slaying the Dragon: Understanding and Effectively Managing the Use of the Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

In last week’s 6-5 decision in SCA Hygiene Prod. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC, No. 2013-1564, 2015 WL 5474261 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed that laches … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Laches As a Defense to Patent Damages Survives – For Now

Previously, we discussed the implications of the failure to mark defense on damages prior to the filing of a patent case.  In this next article in the series, we examine how allegations of direct and/or indirect infringement, as well as … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Navigating Patent Damages Part II: How Infringement Allegations Can Impact or Limit Potential Damages

By now, most patent practitioners are quite familiar with the post-grant patent proceedings (e.g., IPR, PGR, CBM) newly established by the AIA, and their key features, such as the stay and estoppel provisions.  Numerous courts have addressed the issue of … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Estoppel effects of post-grant patent proceedings under the AIA.