We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 452

Expert is not permitted to testify to alternate hypothetical negotiation dates where no hypothetical negotiation was conducted for those alternate dates

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 23 2015

After the parties submitted expert reports in this patent infringement action, Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's damage expert's expected testimony and

Patent misuse and patent exhaustion asserted as stand alone claims dismissed for failure to state a claim

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 18 2015

Continental Automotive GmbH and Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (collectively "Continental") filed a multi-claim lawsuit against iBiquity

District court denies motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination where defendant was competitor of plaintiff and chose ex parte reexamination over inter partes reexamination

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 11 2015

Plaintiff Ecolab Inc. ("Ecolab") filed a patent infringement action alleging that Gurtler infringed Ecolab's patent for "SANITIZING LAUNDRY SOUR,"

District court agrees to stay action pending inter partes review ("IPR") but only if defendants agreed to be bound by estoppel provisions even if they withdraw from the IPR

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2015

After the defendants moved to stay a patent infringement action pending an IPR, the district court analyzed the impact of a potential withdrawal of

District court declines to stay proceeding pending inter partes review where plaintiff and defendant were direct competitors

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2015

Card-Monroe Corp. ("CMC") manufactures tufting machines and equipment. CMC holds several patents that pertain to its machines and equipment. Tuftco

Even after jury trial and final judgment in favor of patent owner, collateral estoppel of invalidity from a subsequent, other proceeding applies

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 2 2015

The plaintiff, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC ("USEI"), filed a patent infringement action against several defendants in the Eastern District of

Three strike and you are out: district court grants summary judgment on lack of standing, no infringement and invalidates the patent

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 26 2015

Plaintiff NOV filed a patent infringement action asserting that defendant Omron had infringed NOV's patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142 or the '142

District court denies motion to lift stay pending inter partes review even where plaintiff agreed to not pursue claims that were subject to review

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 19 2015

Barco filed a patent infringement action in September 2011 against Defendants Eizo Nanao Corporation and Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc. ("Eizo"

Rosebud v. Adobe: district court grants summary judgment of no remedies where plaintiff could not prove actual notice of patent application

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 17 2015

Rosebud filed a patent infringement action Adobe and Adobe moved for summary judgment arguing that Rosebud had no remedy for its patent against Adobe

Court denies motion to stay pending new inter partes review ("IPR") denied where PTO had previously declined to institute an IPR on asserted claims and trial was rapidly approaching

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2015

The defendant, Samsung, had previously filed IPRs on several of plaintiff's patents, which were granted and denied in part. After the plaintiff