In a quartet of recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that SAS Institute extends beyond mandating the inclusion of all claims when trial is instituted, and extends to all grounds as well. These decisions confirm that the Board’s “binary choice” is to institute (or not) on all claims challenged in a petition, as well as all grounds asserted in a petition.
The Federal Circuit today in In re HTC Corp., Misc. 2018-130 (May 5, 2018), followed the holding of the Supreme Court in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), that venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district. In so doing, the court found that recent amendments to the venue statutes did not change the conclusion in Brunette and rejected the argument that the patent venue statute should apply to foreign defendants. Continue reading this entry
In patent litigation, assignor estoppel is a common law doctrine that can dramatically alter the rights of both parties involved – when applicable it is dispositive on the issue of patent validity. However, despite the import of this doctrine, there is a lack of clarity of how and to whom this doctrine applies and even to whether this defense exists at all post-Lear. This article summarizes the current landscape of assignor estoppel claims, and highlights the risks to plaintiffs and defendants as to the continuing lack of clarity that this area of the law poses.
There are many advantages to pursuing relief for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC) compared to U.S. district court, but one that receives little attention is the success rate for complainants (plaintiffs). The rate has been climbing for years and reached nearly 90% for cases decided on the merits in 2017. With such a high rate of success and the many other advantages for complainants, the ITC should be on every patent owner’s radar.
In a recent decision, the Second Circuit further clarified the confines of permissible fair use, reversing the district court’s ruling that functionality that enabled customers to search for videos by term, and to view and archive such videos, was protected fair use. In doing so, the court relied on its “Google Books” fair use decision but here concluded that TVEyes had “exceeded those bounds.”