-
NPEs seeking U.S. patent injunctions won’t benefit from Judge Gilstrap’s clearly erroneous finding of irreparable harm in Collision v. Samsung
Read more: NPEs seeking U.S. patent injunctions won’t benefit from Judge Gilstrap’s clearly erroneous finding of irreparable harm in Collision v. SamsungSome defense-focused patent litigators warn against the potential fallout from Judge Gilstrap’s Collision v. Samsung decision while enforcement-oriented lawyers see opportunities for NPEs. But the part that gets everyone excited is clear legal error.
-
UPC grants Samsung two-week extension to comment on court’s proposal for settlement with ZTE, Samsung risks unwillingness finding
Read more: UPC grants Samsung two-week extension to comment on court’s proposal for settlement with ZTE, Samsung risks unwillingness findingSamsung’s request for an extension of time by a full month appeared unreasonable (if not outrageous) to the UPC’s Mannheim LD.
-
Vote to replace Access Advance with Sisvel as VCL HEVC/VVC pool administrator fails: less than 1/3 of licensors in favor
Read more: Vote to replace Access Advance with Sisvel as VCL HEVC/VVC pool administrator fails: less than 1/3 of licensors in favorA vote reportedly initiated by Harold Barrault, Vice President and Head of Patent Licensing at Orange (a major pool licensor), has failed to reach the necessary majority to put Sisvel in charge of Access Advance’s VCL HEVC/VVC patent pool.
-
Samsung argues non-infringement or breach of (F)RAND obligations in latest Netlist bout
Read more: Samsung argues non-infringement or breach of (F)RAND obligations in latest Netlist boutThe Korean company’s District of Delaware complaint follows its targeting in a Netlist infringement action filed on the same day that the patent-in-suit was issued.
-
Supreme Court holds generics maker Hikma not liable for induced infringement: inducement must be “clear” and “affirmative”
Read more: Supreme Court holds generics maker Hikma not liable for induced infringement: inducement must be “clear” and “affirmative”A unanimous Supreme Court says the Federal Circuit has been on the wrong track lately by loosening the standard for induced infringement.
-
EPO board of appeal refers major claim-construction, added-matter, and referral questions to Enlarged Board of Appeal
Read more: EPO board of appeal refers major claim-construction, added-matter, and referral questions to Enlarged Board of AppealA Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.05 has referred fundamental questions on claim interpretation and added matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, while also asking whether the EBA’s traditionally restrictive approach to accepting referrals should be reconsidered.
-
IPRED workshop exposes divide over patent injunction reform as professor and EC official favor monitoring UPC case law
Read more: IPRED workshop exposes divide over patent injunction reform as professor and EC official favor monitoring UPC case lawA European Parliament workshop on IPRED exposed differing views on patent injunction reform, with some participants advocating legislative intervention and others warning against it before the UPC has developed a more substantial body of case law.
-
USPTO launches expedited examination pilot aimed at incentivizing small business, research sector participation in standard-setting
Read more: USPTO launches expedited examination pilot aimed at incentivizing small business, research sector participation in standard-settingWhile laudable, it isn’t clear that the SPARK Pilot Program can significantly move the needle.
Follow Us
Latest Articles
- NPEs seeking U.S. patent injunctions won’t benefit from Judge Gilstrap’s clearly erroneous finding of irreparable harm in Collision v. Samsung
- UPC grants Samsung two-week extension to comment on court’s proposal for settlement with ZTE, Samsung risks unwillingness finding
- Vote to replace Access Advance with Sisvel as VCL HEVC/VVC pool administrator fails: less than 1/3 of licensors in favor
- Samsung argues non-infringement or breach of (F)RAND obligations in latest Netlist bout
- Supreme Court holds generics maker Hikma not liable for induced infringement: inducement must be “clear” and “affirmative”