Top Rated

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




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




Possessing a keen understanding of and knowledge in the science and technology sectors, IPLL provides clients counseling in all advanced areas of technology. Our patent law-related services are cutting-edge, and our understanding of technology matters is unsurpassed. Our patent expertise includes patent searching; drafting and filing; prosecution; infringement, validity and freedom-to-operate analyses and opinions; due diligence investigations and analytical reviews; Post Grant Proceedings; conducting complex IP audits; establishing in-house patent




Employee Access vs. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

The Michigan District Court in Dana Limited v. American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., 1:10-cv-00450 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2013) addressed an important aspect of a trade secret misappropriation claims, holding that the mere fact that a former employee had access to a valid trade secret does not necessarily mean that he or she misappropriated the trade secret just, by the act of accepting employment at a competing company. In May




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,




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




Patent Litigation

Building on a reputation for the highest quality first chair patent litigators, and working in cooperation with nationally known litigators serving as our local counsel, IPLL brings extensive expertise in handling complex patent litigations, as well as mediation, arbitration, and other forms of dispute resolution. IPLL’s patent litigators themselves possess advanced technology degrees and industry experience, and collaborate with experts across multiple industries, including Biotechnology, Chemical, Clean and Green Technology,




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




ANDA Litigation and Reverse Payments

In Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 133 S. Ct. 787 (2012), the Supreme Court held that reverse payments in pharmaceuticals patent settlement are not categorically immune from the antitrust laws even if such payments fall within the scope of the patent. Often, reverse payments are made by a pioneer drug manufacturer to a generic drug manufacturer in settlement of a patent challenge. In exchange for the payment, the generic




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