Popular

RAND Obligations and Injunctive Relief

Entities that are parts of technology standard-setting organizations are typically required to promise, in some fashion, to license patents essential to any resultant standard on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Once the standard has been promulgated, the standard essential patents (“SEP”s) may be asserted in litigation and the patent holder is expected to live up to reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms. A thorny issue for courts and litigants in the context




Trade Secrets Litigation

At no other time in history have trade secrets been so vital to the making or breaking of a company. Modern firms, from startups to multinationals, face new challenges daily, as the speed of information exchange itself accelerates to keep up with technology shifts, changing trends and competitive challenge. Yet, as swiftly as companies must exchange information to stay in the game, so may competitive advantages built on years of




The White House on ITC Section 337

On June 4, 2013, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its Notice of Final Determination in the ’794 Investigation finding that Apple had violated Section 337 with respect to one of Samsung’s patents. Based on this determination, the Commission issued both a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order barring Apple from importing its iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G, iPad 3 and iPad 2 models for sale in




Copyright Violation and the Constitutionality of Excessive Damages – Music Downloaders Beware!

The Eight Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of statutory damages for copyright infringement against the challenge that it is disproportionately excessive in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012). In 2011, record companies sued a woman for making copyrighted music available to others for free download by using a file-sharing service.  First the jury awarded the record companies $222,000 in damage.  Months after the verdict, however, the district court granted a new




Myriad and Patenting of the Human Gene

The June 2013 Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013) which considered whether portions of human genes may be patented, fueled an extraordinary amount of heated discussion for an intellectual property case. The patents at issue in Myriad concern mutated genes associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Health care advocates worried that a ruling in favor of patentability would make




The Federal Circuit Rules on Apple v. ITC

On August 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part the lower court’s decision in Apple Inc. v. ITC (2012-1338) finding no Section 337 violation in Certain Mobile Devices, and Related Software Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-750). The Federal Circuit ruled that Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607, which related to a touch panel with a transparent capacitive sensing medium that can detect multiple touches at once, was invalid for anticipation and obviousness, and




Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity May Negate Induced Infringement

As early as the1990 decision in Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys. Inc., 917 F.3d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit applied a standard that encompasses negligence in determining whether the defendant violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b), prohibiting active inducement of infringement. Under this standard, if the alleged infringer knew or should have known one’s action would induce actual infringement, the alleged infringer was held liable as an




Clients

Our legal services are offered to the leading corporations, governmental and quasi-governmental organizations, startup companies, research associations and technology creators the world over. With nearly two decades of experience per average lawyer, our counselors have represented leaders in their industries.




Representative Litigations

Our Counsel Have Represented Leading Corporations for Their High-Stakes Litigations . . . A.V. Imports v. Spirits International, N.V. A.V. Imports v. Spirits International N.V., No. 92043340 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) May 19, 2004). Representation of plaintiff A.V. Imports, Inc., and its successor A.V Brands, Inc. which sought cancellation of the trademark registration RUSSKAYA for vodka on the grounds of abandonment. A.V. Imports, Inc. v. Col De Fratta,




Claim Construction & Disclaimer –Federal Circuit Sides with the University of Minnesota

07/01/2013 In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp., No. 12-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial dismissal of a suit brought by the University of Minnesota (“the University”) alleging that AGA Medical Corp. (“AGA”) infringed the University’s medical devices patents. The University’s patents cover medical devices for repairing heart defects. Specifically, the two patents, derived from the same parent