Tag Archives: damages

Supreme Court’s Stryker/Halo Decision Makes it Easier for Courts to Award Enhanced Damages In Patent Infringement Cases

The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Stryker and Halo cases just made it easier for courts to award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, discarding Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test. The Seagate Test In 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a test for enhanced … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, enhanced damages, Federal Circuit, Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Reinforces PTAB’s Authority to Institute Trial on Selected Claims in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Appeal

Newcomers to post-grant proceedings are often surprised by the PTAB’s claim-by-claim approach to patent challenges under the America Invents Act.  When reporting statistics about IPRs, commentators tend to ignore these considerations: First, an IPR petition can be drafted to challenge all or some … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, clear and convincing evidence, doctrine of claim differentiation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit

In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350.  I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, software patents, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP

A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post.  I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute:  one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, Damages, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Preissuance Submission Final Rules Published July 17, 2012

The Patent Office has published its final rules for preissuance submissions under the AIA. A copy of the final rules can be found here (2012-16710). I briefly summarized the rule requirements in a presentation that can be found here (Preissuance Submissions … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

En Banc Decision in Marine Polymer v. HemCon: Amended or New Claims are Candidates for Possible Intervening Rights

In my earlier post, I summarized the panel opinion in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.  On September 26, 2011, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that HemCon had acquired intervening rights in the … Continue reading

Posted in absolute intervening rights, Damages, equitable intervening rights, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Reissue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part III

This is the third post in a series of articles on PGR strategies.  In Part I, I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) basically come in two sizes.  By statute, the … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marine Polymer Technologies v. HemCon, Inc. and Intervening Rights

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) is a widely reported case that raises some questions about the scope of the application of intervening rights.  It involves a matter where the literal language of a claim was … Continue reading

Posted in absolute intervening rights, Appealable, equitable intervening rights, ex parte reexamination, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

New, More Popular Post-Grant Patent Challenges Drive Patent Generation Strategy

Patent Generation and Enforcement Before the Popularity of Post-Grant Proceedings Patent Owners adopt different approaches for drafting patent applications.  For large companies a patent production line approach is frequently adopted which limits the cost and the commensurate drafting efforts on any particular … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, future damages, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation

In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the  tune of $23,129,321 in damages.  The jury found that … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment