Archive for 'Litigation'

Written By: Bruce T. Wieder On February 21, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in Lighting Ballast. In a 6-4 decision, the court ruled that it will continue to give no deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim construction.


Written By: Jonathan H. Spadt RatnerPrestia enhanced its litigation practice with the addition of 5 new litigation attorneys over the past year. Strengthening its litigation resources is a focus for the new year and one that the firm is presenting with a very pragmatic approach. “We understand the challenges of managing and controlling IP litigation [...]


Written By: Bruce T. Wieder This article was published in IP Law 360 on February 6, 2014    On September 13, 2013, the Federal Circuit sat en banc to hear argument in the Lighting Ballast[1] case. The court asked whether it should “afford deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim construction.” The answer to [...]


Washington, D.C. | February 2014 – On January 31, 2014, patent infringement claims asserted against Freixenet USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas were dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff Lamina Packaging Innovations, LLC. This comes after Freixenet’s hard-fought victory over Lamina in the International Trade Commission (ITC) in late 2013.


Written By: Bruce T. Wieder SUMMARY On January 22, the Supreme Court held that even when a licensee sues a patentee for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the burden of proving infringement falls on the patentee. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, the Court ruled that 1) “the burden of proving infringement generally [...]


Written By: Lisa A. Mead In an opinion issued on January 15, 2014 in Novartis AG v. Lee (Fed. Cir., 2014), the Federal Circuit changed how patent term adjustment (PTA) determinations are to be calculated. Several months of additional PTA may now be added to a patent term if a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) [...]


Written By: Brian. P. O’Shaughnessy The debate over patent litigation abuse, and its effect on innovation and our economy, continues to rage. Various interests, and now members of Congress, argue that immediate action in the form of legislation is needed. Those intimately involved in the daily administration of our patent system, however, urge caution, saying [...]


Written By: Bruce T. Wieder SUMMARY On December 26, the Federal Circuit made it easier for a defendant in a patent infringement suit to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp., the court ruled that although recovery of attorneys’ fees requires a showing that “(1) the litigation [...]


Written By: Paul F. Prestia The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has now released a report on the study of patent litigation mandated by the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The report indicates GAO found little support for congressional concern for economic harm arising from patent infringement litigation brought by patent monetization entities (PMEs, or [...]


The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has come under fire in recent years for permitting non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) to maintain patent infringement actions under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This statute provides for injunctive relief as a matter of right against U.S. imports that infringe intellectual property. The controversy over NPE suits at the ITC concerns the threshold issue of “domestic industry,” a standing requirement that every Section 337 complainant must satisfy. Upon close analysis, the concerns over NPE suits at the ITC seem to be somewhat exaggerated.

  Disclaimer   © 2014 RatnerPrestia