On October 19, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases in which patent owners are challenging the Federal Circuit’s rigid standard for proving willful infringement. In their petitions, both patent owners compared the current test for enhanced damages to the Federal Circuit’s old test for attorney’s fees, which the Supreme Court tossed out last year.
For all the protection the attorney-client privilege offers, it presents a bevy of potential pitfalls that may lead to the ultimate disclosure of the privileged documents.
If you sit on your rights as a patent owner, you may lose your claims against infringers. Patent owner Dane Technologies recently learned that lesson the hard way.
District Court in Octane Fitness Remand Awards Majority of Requested Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 285
In a lawsuit that redefined the standard for an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the District Court awarded defendant Octane Fitness $1,778,030 in fees and costs.
Want to Preliminarily Enjoin the Sale of an Infringing Device? Be Prepared to Show the Value of Your Patent
The District Court of Minnesota denied a patent holder’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the sale of an infringing device.
Should a patent infringement lawsuit be stayed where an IPR challenges some, but not all, of the asserted claims? Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recently grappled with that issue.
District of Minnesota Orders Patentee to Reduce Number of Asserted Claims After Filing Joint Claim Construction Statement
In May, the District of Minnesota ordered the parties in a patent case to meet and confer to try to reach an agreement regarding the deadline by which the patentee must reduce the number of asserted claims.
A small rival of 3M, Moldex-Metric, Inc. (Moldex), claims that 3M brought baseless patent infringement claims to stifle competition.
Magistrate Judge Leung considered this question in Stratasys, Inc. v. Microboards Technology, LLC.