On September 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit, (“CAFC”), reinstated an enhanced damages award against Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”), holding that both substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of Cisco’s willful infringement after May 8, 2012, and that Cisco’s conduct rises to the level of “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior” required
On August 23, 2021, the 9th Circuit found that under California common law and statutory copyright law, owners of pre-1972 sound recordings do not have an exclusive ownership right in public performances. This holding means that owners of pre-1972 sound recordings are entitled only to royalties for the public performance
On September 23, 2021, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of a newscaster’s statutory Pennsylvania Right of Publicity claim. It held that there was no immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) for said claim because the CDA’s carve out for intellectual property protections are not limited to federal intellectual property
On September 9, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) found that use of a catalog description of a prior art product as a prior art reference in an IPR proceeding does not create 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel as to the underlying prior art product. Further, the
On September 8, 2021, the Federal Circuit, (“CAFC”), found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of four MaxPower patents, despite an agreement to arbitrate disputes regarding those patents, was unappealable. The CAFC also denied granting a writ of mandamus to stay
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has come a long way in recent years and has allowed people to automate many tasks, but one task AI cannot do is be a named inventor on a patent, at least not yet. Stephen Thaler tried to file a patent application naming his AI machine as
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) recently held, again, that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) erred in finding U.S. Design Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645, directed to gravity feed soup can dispensers, not obvious. The decision underscores that design patents are subject to the
On August 11, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) erred in construing a key term—“fixed”—in the patent claims too narrowly. After construing the term to have special meaning, and relying on extrinsic evidence to support that finding,
The Federal Circuit’s (“CAFC”) recent decision in CommScope Techs. provides an important reminder regarding proving literal infringement, as well as some tips on preserving an issue for appeal. At trial, both CommScope and Dali alleged infringement of multiple patents. Following trial, both parties appealed several decisions. The CAFC, however, focused
On August 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that an employment agreement stating that an employee’s future patents “shall be the property of the University [of Michigan]” did not create a present automatic assignment of the asserted patents to the University. Thus, the Court
© 2021 Irwin IP LLC. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Sitemap | Cookie Policy
Attorney Advertising. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages are intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. The acts of sending email to this website or viewing information from this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. The listing of verdicts, settlements, and other case results is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.