Tag Archives: Supreme Court

On October 20, 2016, we published an article discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review of the Sixth Circuit’s August 2011 ruling in Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 31, … Continue reading

Posted in Copyright & Idea Theft, Intellectual Property, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Cuts Through the Noise to Clarify Copyrightability of Designs in Useful Articles

On May 2, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the Sixth Circuit’s August 2015 ruling in Varsity Brands Inc. v. Star Athletica LLC[i] The Supreme Court will determine the proper test to assess whether Varsity’s two-dimensional cheerleading uniform … Continue reading

Posted in Copyright & Idea Theft, Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court To Consider Copyrightability of Cheerleading Uniform Designs

Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees by prevailing litigants. It states that a court, “in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs.” However, no guidance has been provided on this language in … Continue reading

Posted in Copyright & Idea Theft, Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on High Court Clarifies: Objective Unreasonableness Factor Favored in Attorneys’ Fees Analysis Under the Copyright Act

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

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)

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

In its recent ruling in Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, 575 U.S. __ (2015), the Supreme Court addressed the knowledge requirement for a claim of inducing patent infringement, holding that defendants in a patent case could not evade liability by … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Not a Defense to Inducement

On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc. B&B Hardware owned the federally registered trademark SEALTIGHT for use in connection with fasteners and related hardware … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademark & Trade Dress, TTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. – U.S. Supreme Court Holds TTAB Decisions Can Have Preclusive Effect on District Courts