Federal Circuit / U.S. Court of Spec. Jurisdiction

Federal Circuit / U.S. Court of Spec. Jurisdiction
(incl: International Trade (Customs), Federal Claims, Armed Forces, Federal Adm. Agencies & Boards, Immigration, Tax, Gov. Personnel Appeals, Patent , Trademark, Veterans Appeals, etc.)

Custom text Title Organization
Nov
17
2015
 Apple v. Smartflash: Decision On Institution Finding Claims Directed To Patent Ineligible Subject Matter CBM2015-00127 Faegre Drinker
Nov
18
2015
 Apple v. Smartflash: Dismissing Petitioner Due to the Board Finding Estoppel under Section 325(e)(1) CBM2015-00015 Faegre Drinker
Oct
8
2015
 Apple v. Smartflash: Final Written Decision Finding Instituted Claim Unpatentable on Obviousness Grounds CBM2014-00106 Faegre Drinker
Apr
24
2015
 Apple v. Smartflash: Granting in part Institution and Denying Joinder CBM2015-00015 Faegre Drinker
Nov
24
2015
 Apple v. Smartflash: Granting Institution in Part Where Intervening Case Law Was Found Insufficient to Prevent Estoppel as to One Challenged Claim CBM2015-00131 Faegre Drinker
Nov
19
2015
 Apple v. Virnetx: Final Written Decision Finding All Challenged Claims Anticipated IPR2014-00482 Faegre Drinker
Dec
18
2015
 Apple v. VirnetX: Granting Motion to Submit Supplemental Information on Public Availability of Asserted Reference IPR2015-00810-12, 866, 868, 870-71 Faegre Drinker
Jul
16
2015
 Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.: Denying Institution for Failing to Articulate a Reason to Modify IPR2015-00355 Faegre Drinker
Jul
5
2015
 Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.: Denying Institution Where Declaration and Exhibits Lacked Specificity By Including Information for Multiple Petitions IPR2015-00356 Faegre Drinker
Oct
7
2015
 Apple, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies: Request for Rehearing of Final Written Decision Denied IPR2013-00596 Faegre Drinker
Nov
25
2013
 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.: Appellate Court Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish in the Smart Phone Wars McDermott Will & Emery
May
19
2014
 Apple, Inc. v. Sightsound Technologies, LLC: Granting Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply Faegre Drinker
Feb
5
2016
 Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc - Decision Confirming that Section 315(b) Time Limit Does Not Apply to Request for Joinder IPR2016-00062 Faegre Drinker
May
31
2015
 Applicability of the Entire Market Value Rule in Hatch-Waxman Cases McDermott Will & Emery
Jun
17
2021
 Applicant’s Unreasonable Delays During Patent Prosecution Can Lead to Prosecution Laches Finnegan
Mar
8
2015
 Application Drafting Dangers Highlighted by Pacing Technologies v. Garmin International Mintz
Mar
24
2022
 Apply That Formulation: Presumption of Obviousness Based on Overlapping Ranges McDermott Will & Emery
Dec
15
2022
 Applying Collateral Estoppel in IPRs McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
28
2018
 Apportionment Must Reflect No More than Invention’s Incremental Value McDermott Will & Emery
Dec
3
2020
 Apportionment Unnecessary When Royalty Is Based on Comparable License McDermott Will & Emery
Jan
10
2018
 Aptalis Fails to “Surround’ Apotex’s Generic ER Tablet Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
25
2017
 Aqua Products Sinks PTAB Decision in Bosch v. Matal Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Oct
5
2017
 AQUA PRODUCTS: The Federal Circuit Shifts The Burden of Proof On Amending Claims During An IPR From The Patent Owner To The Petitioner Mintz
Nov
9
2021
 Arbitration Clause Not Binding on the United States Patent Office Proskauer Rose LLP
Aug
27
2015
 Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements, Inc.: Proof of Confusion Essential for Trademark Injunction McDermott Will & Emery
Feb
12
2018
 Arctic Cat: A Chilly Reminder Regarding Licensee Marking Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Jan
12
2016
 Ardagh Glass v. Culchrome: Denying Request for Rehearing Decision on Institution IPR2015-00943 Faegre Drinker
Mar
14
2013
 Are Dr. Dre’s Claims of Likelihood of Confusion and Dilution Enough to “Beat” His Opponents? Re: Trademark Registrations Mintz
Jan
31
2023
 Are Medical Diagnostic Methods Patent Ineligible by Convention?: CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. K&L Gates
Jul
18
2017
 Are State-Owned Patents Immune From IPRs Under The Eleventh Amendment? Foley & Lardner LLP
Dec
3
2018
 Are Trademark Licensees Protected In A Licensor Bankruptcy? Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Aug
18
2020
 Are Valentino’s Rockstud® Shoes as Distinctive as The Red Soles? K&L Gates
Aug
31
2015
 Are Your Employees Religious Enough For NLRB? Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Aug
22
2016
 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc. – Defining “Common Sense” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
26
2015
 Arguing a Post-Alice §101 “Abstract Idea” Rejection during Patent Prosecution Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Sep
6
2010
 Arguing Obviousness After KSR: Are We Coming Full Circle? (Fed. Cir. 2010) Vedder Price
Oct
1
2017
 Argument for Divided Infringement Goes Off the Rails McDermott Will & Emery
Aug
4
2022
 Argument Forfeit in Remand Notwithstanding Modified Claim Construction McDermott Will & Emery
Sep
10
2014
 Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Limited: Final Written Decision (Motion to Amend) IPR2012-00022 Faegre Drinker
Jun
3
2014
 Ariosa Diagnostics v. The Board of Trusees of the Leland Standford Junior University: Guidance on Patent Owner’s Options if Petitioner’s Reply Presents New Evidence Faegre Drinker
Oct
30
2014
 Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.: Final Written Decision IPR2014-00276 Faegre Drinker
Jan
24
2016
 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., Final Written Decision Upholding Challenged Claims IPR2014-01093 Faegre Drinker
Jun
15
2015
 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. – Another Diagnostic Patent Meets its End Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
Aug
22
2016
 Ariosa Loses Verinata Patent Challenge Foley & Lardner LLP
Dec
3
2015
 Ariosa v. Sequenom – Cert. Denied Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
12
2015
 Ariosa v. Sequenom – Novel Genetic Analysis Fails The Mayo Test Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
4
2015
 Ariosa v. Sequenom: In Search of Yes After a Decade of No Texas A&M University School of Law
Dec
18
2015
 Arisdyne Systems v. Cavitation Tech: Order Advising that Cross-Examination Will Occur Before At Least One Member of the Board IPR2015-00977 Faegre Drinker
Oct
31
2017
 Arista Networks, Inc. v. International Trade Commission,: Limited Exclusion Order Does Not Require Specific Findings as to Components McDermott Will & Emery
Apr
26
2019
 Arkansas and Kentucky Halt Medicaid Work Requirements Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Subscribe to Federal Circuit / U.S. Court of Spec. Jurisdiction
 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins