Parties facing allegations of willful patent infringement can rebut the claim by proving that they relied in good faith upon the advice of counsel when undertaking the allegedly infringing activity but at a heavy cost.
If you read past the title, you are a civil procedure nerd. The answer for you is as easy as two plus two.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision severely limiting the appellate rights of petitioners in America Invents Act proceedings that do not engage in potentially infringing activities.
In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp, Magistrate Judge Thorson recently granted the defendants’ motion to compel the production of three slides in a PowerPoint presentation that plaintiff claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
Hydreon Corporation sells a product called FakeTV®, which deters burglars by emitting and projecting light patterns to simulate real television broadcasts.
District of Minnesota Adopts Local Rule 5.6, - Instituting New Processes and Requirements for Civil Parties Filing Under Seal
With the adoption of new Local Rule 5.6, the District of Minnesota will be changing the game for filing documents under seal in civil cases.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
The Federal Circuit’s recent patent eligibility opinion in McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) is the latest to find claims involving computer technology that survive a § 101 challenge.
Your First Shot to Invalidate a Patent May be Your Last—District of Minnesota Holds Issue Preclusion Bars Party from Presenting ANY Invalidity Arguments
The District of Minnesota recently held that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from making any invalidity arguments or re-construing claims of a patent it has previously litigated.
The Federal Circuit has had few opportunities to address the new standard for proving indefiniteness since the Supreme Court relaxed the standard from “insoluble ambiguity” to “reasonable certainty” until recently.