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 447

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

Court continues stay pending inter partes review even though PTO declined to institute review on patent

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

The district court had previously stayed the patent infringement action between Nidec Motor Corporation and Broad Ocean Motor pending the PTO's

Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: court bifurcates and stays Symantec's patent misuse defense

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

Intellectual Ventures ("IV") filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery of Symantec's patent misuse defense. The district court agreed with

Open Text v. Box: district court holds that box can present damages in the form of a fully paid-up lump sum payment even though such an award might preclude a later injunction

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

As the Open Text v. Box patent case gets closer to trial, Open Text sought to preclude Box from asking the jury to award damages in the form of a

Blue Spike v. Adobe: court grants motion to strike infringement contentions where contentions failed to crystalize theory of the case and used an open-ended priority date

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2015

In this patent infringement action between defendant Adobe Systems, Inc. ("Adobe") and plaintiff Blue Spike, LLC ("Blue Spike"), Adobe filed a motion

District court denies motion to exclude defendants' experts from claim construction but orders the defendants to supplement their disclosures or face exclusion

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

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the defendants' claim construction experts. The plaintiff's motion was