IP LAWSUITS

On December 1, 2015, amendments to certain rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. For a better understanding of the new amendments, I have set forth a breakdown of the primary amendments to the rules and the purpose of those amendments.Rule AmendmentPurposeRule 1:... read more
With the beginning of a new year, I thought it would be interesting to review district court decisions on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in 2015. Of particular interest were pre-trial decisions on motions that were dispositive of the patent subject matter eligibility question. Using... read more
On December 17, 2015, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) found cable and Internet provider Cox Communications, Inc., (“Cox”) liable for contributory infringement as a result of Cox’s subscribers illegally downloading and sharing music files... read more
TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. (“TDE”) has filed an appeal of a District Court decision1 that invalidated TDE’s patent using the Supreme Court’s logic set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 82 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014). TDE provides services that... read more
The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion today in MCM Portfolio v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“MCM” and “HP” respectively), holding that the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) system does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.MCM is the owner of... read more
Between the 2016 Presidential Primary Debates and the recent tragedy in Colorado Springs, it seems Planned Parenthood has been central to many current political discussions. The organization also recently made news in legal circles for something the Supreme Court chose not to do. In New Hampshire... read more
At the end of October, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the issue of when enhanced damages may be awarded to a patentee with a finding of infringement.  Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, U.S., No. 14-1520, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., U.S., No. 14-1513.In 2007, the... read more
FanDuel’s growing list of legal woes got a little bit longer when Washington Redskins receiver Pierre Garçon filed a putative class-action lawsuit1 against the daily fantasy sports company on October 30. Garçon’s suit is one of the latest in a rough couple of months legally for the fantasy sports... read more
 In June of this year, we noted that the Eastern District of Texas began requiring a showing of good cause and leave from the Court if a defendant wanted to file a dispositive motion under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., an allegation of patent claim invalidity for non-statutory subject matter) before... read more
 In June of this year, we noted that the Eastern District of Texas began requiring a showing of good cause and leave from the Court if a defendant wanted to file a dispositive motion under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., an allegation of patent claim invalidity for non-statutory subject matter) before... read more
On October 16, 2015, as a result of a District Court case in Wisconsin, Apple was ordered to pay the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the University of Wisconsin-Madison's patent licensing body, more than $234 million in damages for incorporating WARF’s “Table Based Data Speculation... read more
In an unprecedented ruling this summer, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) ordered Google Inc. to block certain websites – not just from its Canadian search engine but from its worldwide search engine too. See Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2015 BCCA 265. This decision, along... read more
The cease and desist letter - the infamous “legal nastygram,™” is the stuff of nightmares for business owners large and small. They rock confidence, paralyze business owners who aren’t sure what to do next, and are an all around “pain in the patoosh” (technically and legally speaking, of course).So... read more
In a decision handed down several days ago, the Federal Circuit ruled in Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, No. 2014-1673, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15674 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 3, 2015) that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard still applies in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) ex parte reexamination... read more
A few years ago, there seemed to be a consistent approach to personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases.  Generic drug manufacturers typically file new drug applications throughout the country and district courts would assert general jurisdiction over them because there was no “real” act of... read more