On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., (Case No. 13-896, May 26, 2015). A copy of the slip opinion may be found here. Active Inducement of Infringement: A Good Faith
Read More
Following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court last June, on May 13, 2015 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another opinion in Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.(Fed. Cir., Slip Opinion Case No. 2009-1372, May 13,
Read More
Determining patent infringement damages is complicated and often borders on the metaphysical. Under U.S. law, a patent holder is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a “reasonable royalty.” In some cases, patent holders
Read More
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Clients often assume that they are entitled to a patent because no single piece of prior art shows all of their invention. In that case the invention may be novel. However, it does not
Read More
The claims of a U.S. Patent define the scope of the patent holder’s right to exclude. In its 1996 Markman decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disputes over the meaning of claim terms are an issue of law to be decided by a
Read More
This has not been a good year for software patents in the United States. Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in June in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), the Patent Office has been aggressively rejecting software patent
Read More
Patent holders are not obligated to police infringement or pursue infringers in order to keep their patents in force. However, failing to address known acts of infringement can, in some cases, provide infringers with a defense called “laches” that can limit the
Read More
One of the defenses available to an accused infringer is that the asserted patent claims are invalid for indefiniteness. The Patent Statute requires that the claims of a patent “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards
Read More
In last month’s blog, we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in X2Y Attenuators, LLC. V. International Trade Commission, a case which demonstrated how limiting descriptions of an invention in a patent specification can be used to restrict the scope of otherwise facially
Read More
On July 7, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. International Trade Commission, which underscores the importance of carefully drafting patent applications with an eye toward litigation. The decision also demonstrates why form often
Read More