Contact Us
Contact Us

Contact Us Now


Call Us 202-434-1500
Menu
Print Page

S&H IP Blog


July 18, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

S&H thumbnail photo

S&H

On February 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) found in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. that Aatrix Software, Inc. (“Aatrix”) was entitled to file its proposed second amended complaint, holding that the District Court erred to the extent it granted the motion to dismiss filed by Green Shades Software, Inc. (“Green Shades”).


March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. ”“ Computer software for identifying and protecting against malware §101 patent eligible

S&H thumbnail photo

S&H

On January 10, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) upheld the patentability of multiple patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (”§ 101”) in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., but reversing on both infringement counts of two patents and one of the two patents”™ damage amounts for failure to apportion.

March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Advanced Video Tech v. HTC Corp. ”“ Co-inventor did not transfer interests in patent via employment agreement

S&H thumbnail photo

S&H

On January 11, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its opinion in Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corp., holding that a co-inventor of a patent does not transfer ownership interests in the patent under a California employment agreement that includes a “will assign” provision, a trust assignment provision, and a quitclaim assignment provision.

March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

W-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp. ”“ Time bar of USPTO IPR petition is appealable

S&H thumbnail photo

S&H

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., holding that time-bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“§ 315(b)”) are appealable and overruling Achates”™s holding that a § 315(b) time-bar determination is final and non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).


March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Supreme Court

WesternGeco LLC v. Geophysical Corp. ”“ Whether lost profits cumulated abroad for infringement can be brought into U.S. court

S&H thumbnail photo

S&H

On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) granted certiorari in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, to determine “[w]hether the court of appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).”

Categories

Contributors

Archives

STAAS & HALSEY LLP

Firm Logo

1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005

T. 202.434.1500 | F. 202.434.1501

View on Google Maps

Back to Top

Privacy Notification

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. If you continue browsing the site, you are giving implied consent to the use of cookies and tracking on this website. See our Privacy Policy for details.