Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Damages
-
Court Grants Exceptional Case/Attorney Fees When Software Patent Has Invalid Claims under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, motions for an exceptional case and attorneys' fees were granted on the basis that the patent owner brought suit with a software patent having claims so "ugly"…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Ever since the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. about five years ago, liberalizing (or at least simplifying) the law regarding awarding district court awards of attorneys' fees in patent cases under…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last June, the Supreme Court determined that $93.4 million in lost foreign profits awarded to WesternGeco L.L.C. for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) was a permissible domestic application of 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the Court therefore reversed the Federal Circuit's reversal of the award of lost profits damages and…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court changed the calculus on what conduct satisfies the "exceptional case" criteria for awarding attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in its Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. decisions. Under this clarifying precedent, the standard for finding…
-
By Michael Borella — We wrote about this case six months ago, regarding InvestPic's appeal to the Federal Circuit over having its patent invalided under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Northern District of Texas. InvestPic did not get the outcome it was looking for. Here, the case is back in the District Court to consider…
-
By Michael Borella — Almost two years ago, we covered a dispute in the Southern District of New York (which began in the Eastern District of Texas) involving plaintiff AlphaCap, a non-practicing entity that aggressively asserted its patents against a number of targets, including Gust. In short, when Gust didn't quickly settle, AlphaCap offered to dismiss…
-
En Banc Federal Circuit Finds § 145 Appellants Generally Will Not Be Liable for Patent Office's Attorneys' Fee By Kevin E. Noonan & Josh Rich — The Federal Circuit handed down its en banc decision on Friday regarding the question of whether under 35 U.S.C. § 145 an applicant must pay attorneys' fees as part…
-
Plaintiffs Litigation Position on Defendant's Equitable Estoppel Defense Not Objectively Unreasonable By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Akeso Health Sciences, LLC v. Designs for Health, Inc., District Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a Motion for Exceptional Case Determination and Award of Attorneys' Fees…
Patent Docs 