Tag Archives: patent litigation

This is the next part of our series of posts on utilizing California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1030, in patent cases, particularly as a strategy against nuisance suits. Section 1030 provides that a defendant may move the court to … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Strategies Against Nuisance Patent Suits Part II – Cases on California Civil Procedure Code 1030

Much is lamented about the burden and costs that nuisance patent litigation imposes. Recently, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case on restricting patent litigation venue, the problems of forum shopping by NPEs have come back into the … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Strategies Against Nuisance Patent Suits – Utilizing California Civil Procedure Code 1030

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

Glaser Weil is pleased to announce that Partner and Head of the Trademark, Copyright and Media Practice Erica Van Loon has been named to Law360’s “Rising Stars” list, which recognizes top legal talent under the age of 40 with outstanding … Continue reading

Posted in Copyright & Idea Theft, Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, Trade Secret & Unfair Competition, Trademark & Trade Dress | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Glaser Weil Partner and Head of the Trademark, Copyright and Media Practice Erica Van Loon Named to Law360’s “Rising Stars” List

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

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)