Popular

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




Federal Circuit and Advisory Council Model Orders

On July 22, 2013, a model order relating to the number of asserted claims and prior art references in patent litigations was released on the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s webpage. The order required that in the first phase, plaintiffs must select 10 claims per patent, and 32 claims total, 40 days after production of “core” technical documents, while defendants are limited to 12 prior art references per patent and 40




M&A and Government Immunity

The Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003 (2013) put a limitation on the state immunity under which local governments across the country have relied upon for decades to shield their activities from federal antitrust scrutiny. This decision will open the door to challenging numerous government transactions including the transactions consummated before the Phoebe Putney decision. Until Phoebe Putney, the Supreme Court




Standard of Review Changes for Freeze-Out Mergers

On May 29, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court, in its landmark decision of In re MFW Shareholders Litigation (MFW), held that the “deferential business judgment rule” is the correct standard of review for freeze-out mergers, as opposed to the more rigorous “entire fairness standard.” This decision requires that a freeze-out merger, from the inception of merger negotiations, be subject to both (1) negotiation and approval by a fully empowered special committee of




Assignment of Intent-to-use Trademark Applications

The Trademark Act Section 10(a)(1) clearly states that an intent-to-use application cannot be assigned “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.” In the recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board case, Cent. Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Mfg. Co., No. 91188816 (TTAB August 16, 2013), All-Glass Aquarium Co., a




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 Secret and Contract Law

The Federal Circuit has recently articulated the position that a contractual agreement to transfer otherwise secret information will override trade secret protections that may be in place. The recent case on-point was Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., No. 2012-1074, 2013 WL 3285331 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2013), reaches back more than a decade to 1998, when MIT and Convolve sued a group of defendants for both trade secret misappropriation




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




IP License Agreements Under the AIA

Over the past few years, there has been an ongoing subject matter jurisdiction battle between state courts and federal circuit courts. This jurisdiction battle is especially prevalent in cases where a complaint asserts a non-patent cause of action with an underlying patent issue, such as disputes over intellectual property licensing or malpractice claims. In most patent cases the “arising under” analysis for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction is fairly straight forward because a