Intellectual Property

RSS Link
IP-Blog-Legal-Advice-660x283

Legal regimes are shifting, including in the intellectual property world as businesses increasingly seek the protection of trade secrets rather than patents to secure their confidential information. When the Defend Trade Secrets Act was passed in 2016, trade secret litigation skyrocketed, increasing more than 25 percent in a single year. While the number of trade secret cases filed in federal court fell briefly during COVID, that number is back on the rise, with over 1,200 cases filed last year. Meanwhile, patent litigation is experiencing the opposite trend: the number of patent cases filed in 2023 fell to their lowest levels since 2010. These…
Continue Reading The Rise of Trade Secret Litigation

Universal Blog image Justice

This case addresses[1] the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a party’s waiver of a doctrine-of-equivalents theory in an initial lawsuit extends to a subsequent case involving a newer iteration of the technology previously litigated.
Continue Reading Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law

IP-Blog-Law-Gavel-660x283

After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]…
Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims

Image - patent

Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. Each of the patents asserted by Celanese had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016, and as a result are governed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”).
Continue Reading Celanese v. ITC: How the On-Sale Bar Can Turn Sweet Sales into Spoiled Patents

Esports and Game Image _ Controller 2

On August 28, the CFPB issued a Consumer Advisory warning that it believes video game companies are targeting children for monetary gain. With 45.7 million U.S. children engaged in video gameplay, the agency is concerned about the financial risks that games and virtual worlds pose, especially to young consumers. This Advisory highlights a growing focus on the game industry’s practices, which allegedly mimic traditional banking systems but lack corresponding consumer protections. …
Continue Reading Regulators Ramp up Scrutiny of Games’ Business Models

IP-Blog-Legal-Advice-660x283

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims, such that an exception to the one-year time-bar on interference proceedings applies, and (2) whether Bates’ pre-critical claim language materially differed from his post-critical claim language, which dictates whether his claims were time-barred.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

IP-Blog-Image-LawGavel-660x283

The Virginia Court of Appeals recently issued a consequential trade secrets ruling, reversing a jury’s multi-billion dollar damages award, and finding that the trial court committed several legal errors which improperly led to the largest damages verdict in Virginia’s history. The case, Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp., No. 1399-22-4, involved two companies in the business process management (BPM) industry, each of whom offer platforms that enable third party business customers to build complex software applications using “low-code application development platforms.” …
Continue Reading Virginia Court of Appeals Reverses Record $2 Billion Verdict, Emphasizing Damages Resulting from Misappropriation Must Actually Be Proved Under Virginia Trade Secrets Law

Universal Blog CA

In California, although the prevailing rule is that each party in litigation must cover their own fees and costs, a litigant can be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if expressly permitted in a contract. Proprietary information agreements often include an award of attorney’s fees and costs if a company prevails in seeking injunctive relief for misappropriation of its trade secrets by a current or former employee. However, there is an ambiguity in whether a plaintiff actually prevails on a claim for trade secret misappropriation, entitling it to injunctive relief and therefore attorney’s fees, even without a showing of damages. In…
Continue Reading Attorney’s Fees May Be Recoverable in Trade Secret Cases, Even Without Damages

AI-Blog-AI-Robot-660x283

Given the introduction of the ‘NO FAKES’ Act by a bi-partisan group of senators within days of U.S. Copyright Office’s release of its digital replicas report asserting an “urgent need” for more cohesive protections at the federal level, it’s clear that momentum is building for federal oversight in the realm of deepfake and digital replication technology. This legislative effort is intertwined with broader national and global discussions about AI’s impact on privacy, intellectual property, and personal identity, alongside existing gaps in enforceable protections.
Continue Reading Closer to a Federal Right of Publicity – Senate Introduces NO FAKES Act

IP-Blog-Law-Gavel-660x283

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC, Nos. 2022-1905, 2022-1970 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2024) addressed several issues, including: (1) what evidence of litigation misconduct may support a finding of unclean hands, barring relief for related claims, (2) the appropriate legal analysis for finding a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO, (3) how to appropriately construe disputed facts underlying obviousness determinations at the summary judgment stage, and (4) the legal standard and timing for determinations of “prevailing party,” “exceptional case,” and “closeness” of the case, which underlie awards of attorney’s…
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Requisite Analysis for Unclean Hands, Inequitable Conduct, Summary Judgement Determinations of Obviousness, and Awards of Fees and Costs

Image - patent

In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the court addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits such arguments on appeal to the Federal Circuit. This case also addresses what an appellant must show to have claim construction arguments considered on the merits on appeal.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Waiver Regulations for Rehearings Before the PTAB

FDA-Blog-Image-Pharmeceauticals-660x283

The case of Amarin Pharma, Inc. and its affiliates versus Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC presents a fascinating intersection of patent law, FDA regulatory strategy, and pharmaceutical marketing. Central to this legal dispute are U.S. Patents 9,700,537 and 10,568,861, owned by Amarin, which describe methods of reducing cardiovascular risk by administering icosapent ethyl, a compound found in the drug Vascepa®. Vascepa® had initially received FDA approval for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition marked by high levels of triglycerides in the blood. However, Amarin’s continued research into the drug’s benefits led to an expanded FDA approval in 2019,…
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Provides Insight on Induced Infringement Claims in Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.

Universal Blog Gavel Money

In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards.
Continue Reading The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees

In the Know Weekly

Receive weekly updates by email.