Category: Patent Litigation
-
Tesla tells UKSC it shouldn’t have to do what much smaller companies like Doro, Emporia, Nothing can do — and relies on SME astroturfers
The UK Supreme Court started its 2.5-day Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci hearing today. Tesla’s case for a UK determination of pool rates has fundamental shortcomings, which would pose challenges even if it got a UK trial.
-
Google’s PTAB barrage against K.Mizra draws hold-out accusation in latest filing
K.Mizra urged the PTAB to discretionarily deny Google’s IPR petition on a patent, arguing the tech giant is multiplying proceedings to harass a smaller licensing firm.
-
Will UK Supreme Court go from Unwired to Unhinged? Radical judicial imperialists form majority of panel in Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci
The deck appears stacked against reasonableness, but hopefully the outcome will be better than the historic positions of the panel majority suggest. Otherwise the UK will come under a lot more pressure than it can sustain.
-
It’s official: treble damages, other goodies available in Munich patent cases; still no Texas-size awards, but nothing to sneeze at either
Treble damages in Munich? German patent damages law offers greater opportunities than most patent holders would think. A new landmark ruling draws a roadmap to reasonably sizable damages awards with surmountable evidentiary hurdles.
-
Judge Gilstrap finds Verizon reasonably expected not to get sued by Headwater (in which it invested), tosses $175M jury verdict
Judge Gilstrap’s passion for patent law is evidenced by how he uses “to teach away” in a context in which it is highly uncommon terminology.
-
CureVac sues Moderna in Delaware over Spikevax patents, seeking treble damages but no injunction
CureVac sues Moderna for treble damages but not an injunction over 10 patents related to Spikevax. The case adds to broader post-COVID mRNA patent battles.
-
Disney faces clear and present danger of UPC 11-country HEVC patent injunction in InterDigital case after May 5 & 6 hearing: court document
The UPC Mannheim LD appears unconvinced of Disney’s technical defenses, and even if the court deemed Disney entitled to a FRAND license, an injunction would probably issue.
-
ECJ Advocate General says excipient label is binding for SPC purposes: Halozyme v. Czech IPO
AG Emiliou says a substance in a MA that is called an excipient may not be considered an active ingredient for SPC purposes, which would invalidate grants in eight EU member states.
-
UPC CD Paris says expired BASF patent still open to attack, makes own determination of technical problem
The UPC’s CD Paris dismissed Huntsman’s revocation action against BASF’s expired EP1516720, confirming that expired patents may still be challenged where past-damage exposure remains live.
-
Quantificare v. Canfield Scientific: Dusseldorf LD finds infringement across four UPC states, rejects invalidity counterclaim
The UPC’s Dusseldorf LD ruled that a confirmed infringing act in one contracting member state is enough to support a pan-UPCland injunction, even where the only provable act is in a country the patent holder deliberately carved out of its claim.