Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Patent

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Transfers – Recent Decisions ….

by

Posted in Patent

On July 16, 2012

As we previously reported, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act (“AIA”) prohibits plaintiff patent owners from joining multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action. An unintended, yet significant, consequence of this is that patent holders must bring serial litigations when more than one unrelated infringer is implicated. And, with the added possibility of declaratory judgment actions commenced in different venues, there is a real potential to have multiple cases — involving the same patent(s) — scattered across different judicial districts. Beyond the obvious resource concerns, this scenario may increase the risk of conflicting rulings.

Intellectual Asset Management Ranks Gibbons Among Top IP Law Firms and Practitioners Worldwide

by

Posted in Intellectual Property / Patent

On July 12, 2012

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) ranks Gibbons among the top IP law firms and practitioners worldwide in its guide – IAM Patent Litigation 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Litigators. David E. De Lorenzi, Chair of the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and Sheila F. McShane, a Director in the Department, were two of only five intellectual property lawyers featured as leading individuals in this practice.

Gibbons Intellectual Property Practice Highlighted by Chambers USA

by

Posted in Intellectual Property / Patent

On July 10, 2012

The Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and two of its attorneys, were among the 10 Gibbons practice areas and 20 individual attorneys ranked in the 2012 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers annually rates the nation’s leading business lawyers and law firms through comprehensive interviews with top companies, attorneys, and business executives, plus extensive supplementary research.

Revisiting Hindsight Bias: Mintz v. Dietz & Watson

by

Posted in Patent

On July 9, 2012

In Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, an opinion penned by Chief Judge Rader, a three judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Newman and Dky strongly admonished against the use of impermissible hindsight towards a finding of obviousness. Despite finding that the accused products did not infringe and following a comprehensive analysis of hindsight, the CAFC further held that U.S. Patent No. 5,413,148 (the “‘148 Patent”) was not invalid under § 103.

Apple v. Motorola – An End to the Smart Phone Wars or the Harbinger of New Standards for Proving Damages and Injunctions?

by

Posted in Patent

On June 29, 2012

Judge Posner’s ruling in Apple v. Motorola last week may have brought an end to the patent war between the parties, but may be a harbinger for tougher standards for proving patent damages and injunctions. Apple and Motorola have accused each other of infringing patents directed to cell phone technology. Following a Daubert hearing, Judge Posner excluded the parties’ damages experts as unreliable. Because the parties cannot prove their respective damages without admissible expert opinion, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.: Federal Circuit Explains Willful Infringement

by

Posted in Patent

On June 20, 2012

Last week, in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion concerning the willful infringement standard articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC (“Seagate”). After affirming the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, appellant Gore filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, challenging the District Court’s willfulness analysis. The Federal Circuit granted Gore’s petition for rehearing en banc for the sole purpose of determining the standard of review applicable to willful infringement.

Key for IP Practitioners: Preparation, Preparation, Preparation!

by

Posted in Licensing / Patent

On June 14, 2012

Two recent decisions highlight the importance of proper preparation during patent litigation, from the perspective of both plaintiffs and defendants. In In re Bill of Lading, No. 2010-1493, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11519 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2012), the Court held that direct infringement only needs the same level of pleading as that outlined in Form 18 (which is a sample complaint for direct infringement) of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while in contrast, indirect infringement needs to be pled in accordance with the higher standard delineated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In re Bill of Lading, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11519, at *17-27.

USPTO Offers IP Awareness Assessment

by

Posted in Patent

On June 11, 2012

Under the joint auspices of the US Patent and Trademark Office the National Institute of Standards and Technology/Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the IP Awareness Assessment is now in the beta stage and available for businesses and inventors to assess their intellectual property awareness. Dubbed “A business and inventor’s IP education tool,” this web-based offering is designed to assess IP knowledge and provide personalized training resources for businesses and inventors.

Merial v. Cipla: Finding Jurisdiction Over Foreign Patent Infringers

by

Posted in Patent

On June 5, 2012

In Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., the Federal Circuit recently reviewed an appeal from the Middle District of Georgia that found defendant Cipla (an Indian company) in contempt for violating an earlier injunction and finding co-defendant Velcera in contempt for acting in concert with Cipla to violate that injunction. The case arose from Cipla’s alleged infringement of Merial’s patents directed to flea and tick protection compositions, and Cipla’s underlying challenges to the District Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.

Strategic Growth in the Face of a Recession: Gibbons IP Department Continues to Soar While Matching Clients’ Needs

by

Posted in Patent

On May 25, 2012

David E. De Lorenzi, Chair of the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, was interviewed recently by Metropolitan Corporate Counsel regarding the IP Department’s strategic growth strategies during the recent economic downturn and the resulting added benefits to the firm’s clients. A copy of the complete interview may be viewed here.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories