Eric Caligiuri
Of Counsel
Experience
Eric Caligiuri advises domestic and international clients through complex Intellectual Property disputes. Mr. Caligiuri’s practice focuses on Patent and Trade Secret Litigation in federal district courts, California state courts, and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). He has experience representing companies in a wide range of fields, including semiconductor products and processes, mobile device components and applications, networking, and systems-on-a-chip (SoC’s). Mr. Caligiuri also has experience handling employment and commercial litigation matters. Mr. Caligiuri is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has experience with patent and trademark prosecution. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Caligiuri worked as an engineer.
Representative Matters
Note: confidential matters advising clients on pre-litigation IP issues, third-party subpoenas, licensing agreements, and patent prosecution issues cannot be listed, but the following list shows representative litigation matters.
- Magnacross v. Novatel Wireless, Inc. (TXED). Representation of Novatel in patent litigation involving wireless data transmission systems.
- CalAmp Wireless Networks v. Novatel Wireless, Inc. and Enfora, Inc. (TX State Court, 14th Judicial District, Dallas County). Representation of Novatel and Enfora in a contract dispute.
- Envisiontec, Inc. v. Formlabs, Inc. (CACD). Representation of Formlabs in patent litigation involving 3D printing.
- Representation of Novatel Wireless in a two-patent litigation concerning manufacturing/assembly of IC chips. Anza Technology, Inc. V. Novatel Wireless (CASD)
- Representation of REGEN/Encycle in patent litigation involving energy management. REGEN Energy Inc. (now Encycle Corporation) v. eCurv, Inc., (CASD).
- Representation of Silicon Storage Technology in an insurance coverage matter arising from settlement of trade secret litigation. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA et al., (CAND).
- Representation of respondent Entropic Communications in a four- patent ITC investigation concerning set-top boxes, gateways, and in-home networking. Obtained complete dismissal of the ITC investigation during fact discovery. Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges, And Adapters And Components Thereof (ITC).
- Representation of respondent Samsung entities in a six-patent ITC investigation concerning smartphones, smart TVs, and applications relating to sharing media and location-based services. Representation lasted from institution through the post-hearing proceedings, during which the Commission determined that Samsung did not infringe any asserted claim, and that several of the asserted claims are invalid. Certain Digital Media devices including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets, Mobile Phones, Components Thereof, And Associated Software (ITC).
- Representation of plaintiff and complainant Peregrine Semiconductor in a multi-patent litigation involving radio frequency switch devices in matters brought in the ITC and the Southern District of California. Assisted in securing a favorable settlement for Peregrine. Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices Containing Same (ITC) and Peregrine Semiconductor v. RF Micro Devices (S.D. Cal).
- Representation of defendant Texas Instruments in a patent infringement action involving systems-on-a-chip in the District of Delaware. Won summary judgment of non-infringement on the majority of claims and a stipulation of non-infringement under the court’s claim construction for the remaining claims. Ruling affi rmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated (D. Del).
- Representation of plaintiff Entropic Communications in patent litigation involving three standard essential Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) patents in the Southern District of California. Entropic Communications, Inc. v. ViXS Systems, Inc. (S.D. Cal.).
- Representation of defendant Entropic Communications in a five patent litigation involving automatic content recognition hardware and software brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Secured favorable dismissal without prejudice during fact discovery. Blue Spike, LLC v. Entropic Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex).
- Representation of plaintiff Silicon Storage Technology in patent litigation relating to process technology for memory devices in the Northern District of California. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. Telefunken Semiconductors (N.D. Cal.).
- Representation of plaintiff and counter-defendant Invenger Technologies in a trade secret matter in the Central District of California involving mobile payment technology. Invenger Technologies, Inc. v. Enservio, Inc. (C.D. Cal.).
- Representation of plaintiff Weiland Sliding Doors and Windows in multipatent infringement action in S. D. Cal. involving mechanical device hardware. Weiland Sliding Doors and Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows and Doors, LLC (S.D. Cal.).
- Provide trademark guidance and prosecution for clients.
Previous Experience
Litigation associate at large national and international law firms
(2008-2015)
Publications and Speeches
“The EEOC’s Final Regulations Under the ADAAA: How These Changes Will Affect Internal Policies and Procedures of Municipalities and Other
Employers,” Municipal Lawyer Magazine (November/December 2011), Author
San Diego Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation “Rising Star”, 2015 to 2019
J.D., cum laude, University of San Diego Law School, 2008
Order of the Coif
M.Sc., honors with distinction, California State University, Northridge, Materials Engineering, 2005
B.S., University of California, San Diego, Mechanical Engineering, 2002
Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in San Diego Super Lawyers/Rising Stars® 2019 List
Weintraub is pleased to announce that Jo Dale Carothers has been recognized as a 2019 San Diego Super Lawyer and Eric Caligiuri as a 2019 Rising Star. Jo Dale Carothers is a shareholder and chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property group.
37 Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Named Among 2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Super Lawyers has released its Northern California, Southern California and San Diego lists of outstanding attorneys for 2018, on which 37 Weintraub Tobin attorneys have been included. Five Weintraub Tobin attorneys received special recognition as a Top 25 Sacramento Super Lawyer.
36 Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Named Among 2017 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Super Lawyers has released its Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego lists of outstanding attorneys for 2017, on which 36 Weintraub Tobin attorneys have been included. Six Weintraub Tobin attorneys received special recognition as a Top 25 Sacramento Super Lawyer.
Four Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Recognized as “Rising Stars” in Southern California
Weintraub Tobin, one of California’s leading, full-service law firms, is pleased to announce that Eric Caligiuri, Jacob Gonzales, Jessica Marlow, and Darrell White have been named to the 2017 Southern California “Rising Stars” list.
Four Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Recognized as “SuperLawyers” in Southern California
LOS ANGELES, CA (January 20, 2017) – Weintraub Tobin, one of California’s leading, full-service law firms, is pleased to announce that Eric Caligiuri, Jo Dale Carothers, David R. Gabor, and Gary Waldron have been named to the 2017 Southern California “SuperLawyers” list.
33 Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Named Among 2016 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Super Lawyers has released its Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego lists of outstanding attorneys for 2016, on which 33 Weintraub Tobin attorneys have been included. Three Weintraub Tobin attorneys received special honors in their respective regions.
Google’s Fair Use Defense Thwarts Oracle’s Attempt to Recover $9 Billion in Copyright Case
In a high-profile case, a jury recently found that Google’s use of portions of Oracle’s Java software code was allowable under the fair use doctrine and thus did not constitute copyright infringement.
37 Weintraub Tobin Attorneys Named Among 2015 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Super Lawyers has released its Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego lists of outstanding attorneys for 2015, on which 37 Weintraub Tobin attorneys have been included. Eight Weintraub Tobin attorneys received special honors in their respective regions.
On the Move
By: Jason Doiy, The Recorder Intellectual property lawyer Eric Caliguiri joined Weintraub Tobin as of counsel in San Diego. Caligiuri departed Covington & Burling, following shareholder Jo Dale Carothers. Read entire article here.
Caligiuri Joins Weintraub Tobin as Of Counsel
By: Daily Transcript Staff Report Eric Caligiuri has joined Weintraub Tobin’s San Diego office as of counsel. Caligiuri advises domestic and international clients on complex intellectual property disputes and focuses on patent and trade secret litigation in federal district courts,
Eric Caligiuri Joins Weintraub Tobin’s San Diego Office, Further Enhances IP Capabilities
SAN DIEGO (March 31, 2015) – Weintraub Tobin, one of California’s leading, full service law firms, is pleased to announce that intellectual property attorney Eric Caligiuri has joined the firm’s San Diego office as Of Counsel.
District Court Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Claim Alleging Inferred Knowledge of Prior Art Based on Wide Spread Availability
In California Costume Collections, Inc v. Pandaloon, LLC, 2-21-cv-01323 (CDCA Apr. 7, 2022) (John W. Holcomb), the Central District of California recently considered whether a plaintiff plead an inequitable conduct claim with the required particularity concerning knowledge of materiality.
District Court Denies Prejudgment Interest Accrued During COVID-19 Delay
In Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., et. al v. E-One, Inc. et. al, 8-18-cv-00617 (MDFL Feb. 16, 2022) (Thomas P. Barber) the Court denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for pre-judgment interest that would have accrued during a stay due to COVID-19.
District Court Stays Litigation for Second Time Pending Patent Review
In WAG Acquisition LLC v. Flying Crocodile Inc et al, 2-19-cv-01278 (WDWA Dec. 28, 2021), the Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination even though the case had already previously been stayed pending inter partes review.
District Court Dismisses Challenge to PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Inter Partes Review
In Apple Inc. et al. v. Hirshfeld, case number 5:20-cv-06128, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice of denying patent reviews due to looming trials in district court.
Federal Circuit Allows Easier Foreign Corporation Service Requirements
In In re: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., case number 2021-165, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit validated a possible framework for courts and plaintiffs in patent cases to significantly speed up the process of serving complaints on foreign defendants.
Australian Judge Rules Inventions Developed by Artificial Intelligence Can Qualify for Patent Protection
In Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, case number VID 108 of 2021, in the Federal Court of Australia, an Australian Federal Judge became the first known jurist to rule that inventions developed by artificial intelligence can qualify for patent protection.
Supreme Court Finds PTAB Judges Unconstitutional
5-4 Opinion Offers Judicial Workaround by Giving More Oversight to the USPTO Director In U.S. v. Arthrex, case number 19-1434; Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex, case number 19-1452; and Arthrex v.
District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Even After Granting Clear Summary Judgment on Noninfringement Grounds
In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining plaintiff’s litigation positions were not baseless even after a granting of summary judgment of noninfringement that “was not a close call.” As way of background,
Federal Circuit Set to Have First Vacancy in Six Years
On March 16, 2021, U.S. Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals announced he plans to take senior status on May 31, 2021. This semi-retirement is set to create the first vacancy at the Federal Circuit in almost six years.
District Court Finds Patentee’s Prior Statement Regarding Prior Art A Binding Admission
In The Sherwin-Williams Company v. PPG Industries, Inc., 2-17-cv-01023 (WDPA 2021-01-21, Order), the court had to decide whether Plaintiff The Sherwin-Williams Co. (“Sherwin”) should be bound by its prior admission to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) during vacated reexamination proceedings.
District Court Finds Communications and Documents Concerning Defendant’s Post-Filing Acquisition Are Not Protected by the Common Interest Privilege
In 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., 1-19-cv-00862 (DDE 2020-12-04, Order) (Colm F. Connolly), the District Court ordered the defendant to produce documents and give testimony about communications between defendant and its new corporate owner concerning the litigation and the provisions in the acquisition agreement that concern the litigation.
District Court Finds Documents Related to Litigation Funding Protected by Work Product Doctrine
In Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC, 3-19-cv-01301 (SDCA 2020-10-20, Order) (Cathy Ann Bencivengo), the District Court for the Southern District of California recently considered whether litigation funding documents could be withheld from production by plaintiff Impact Engine because the documents were work product protected.
District Court Applies Different Requirement for Similarity of Accused and Asserted Works Under DMCA Versus the Copyright Act
In Kirk Kara Corp. v. Western Stone & Metal Corp. et al, 2-20-cv-01931 (CDCA 2020-08-14, Order) (Dolly M. Gee), the Central District of California denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement,
Irreparable Harm for Permanent Injunction Supported by Lost Profits Award
In f’real Foods, LLC et al v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al, 1-16-cv-00041 (DDE 2020-07-16, Order) (Colm F. Connolly), plaintiffs freal Foods, LLC and Rich Products Corporation sued defendants Hamilton Beach Brands,
Southern District of New York Court Orders “All Remote” Bench Trial
In Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al, 1-17-cv-09922 (SDNY 2020-05-27, Order), Chief Judge C.J. McMahon of the Southern District of New York ordered an upcoming bench trial set to begin on July 6,
District Court Stays Discovery Deadlines Because of Coronavirus Threat but Keeps Markman Hearing on Calendar
On March 6, 2020, a Central District Court in UPL NA Inc. f/k/a United Phosphorous, Inc. v. Tide International (USA), Inc. et al, 8-19-cv-01201 (CDCA 2020-03-06, Order) (Ronald S.W. Lew), issued an order that may become more common place across courts.
Inequitable Conduct Can Render all Patents in a Patent Family Unenforceable through Infectious Unenforceability
In Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., 1-17-cv-01616 (DDE 2020-01-07, Order), the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that an inequitable conduct claim must be related only to the prosecution of the patent-at-issue in ruling on plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ infectious unenforceability counterclaims.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes down USPTO’s Request for Attorney’s Fees
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees –
Federal Circuit Holds Administrative Patent Judges Appointments Unconstitutional
In Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., case number 18-2140, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently considered whether the appointment of the Board’s Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) by the Secretary of Commerce,
Federal Circuit Holds That Claim Language Can Limit the Scope of a Design Patent
In Curver Luxembourg SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., case number 18-2214, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the claim language of a design patent can limit its scope where the claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture that appears nowhere in the figures.
Federal Circuit Holds IPR Proceedings on Pre-AIA Patents is Not an Unconstitutional Taking Under the Fifth Amendment
In CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding appealed claims obvious. However, more importantly, the Federal Circuit also held that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Federal Circuit Sets Higher Standard for Early Alice Motions
In Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. et. al., the Federal Circuit recently held that a lower court wrongly invalidated four patents under Alice because they contain an inventive concept. The four patents at issue share the same specification and generally relate to connecting a data capture device,
U.S. Supreme Court Allows App Store Anti-Trust Class Action to Proceed Against Apple
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices.
Attorney Fees for Successful Defense of IPR May Not Be Recovered as Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284
On March 25, 2018, the District Court in Nichia Corporation v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8-16-cv-00545 (CACD 2019-03-25, Order), granted defendant’s motion to preclude plaintiff’s damages expert from testifying that plaintiff should recover,
The Federal Circuit Clarifies Rules For Importation of Limitations From the Specification During Claim Construction
In Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. et al., case number 18-1076, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, recently clarified the rules for the incorporation of a limitation from a patent’s specifications into the claims during claim construction.
District Court Rules Certain Prior Art References Are Precluded Under IPR Estoppel
On December 28, 2018, the Court in The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-(AGRx), issued a Final Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Validity under 35 U.S.C.
Court Finds No Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendant Based On U.S. Subsidiary Under Stream of Commerce and Agency Theories
In University of Massachusetts Medical School et al v. L’Oreal SA et al, 1-17-cv-00868 (DED 2018-11-13, Order) (Sherry R. Fallon), the magistrate judge recommended granting a foreign parent company defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ patent infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction where its American subsidiary introduced the alleged accused products into the stream of commerce and the foreign defendant’s corporate structure is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction because “mere ownership of a subsidiary does not justify the imposition of liability on the parent.” The primary plaintiff in the case is the University of Massachusetts Medical School,
District Court Grants Motion For More Definitive Statement Because Patent Infringement Claim Involved Complicated Technology
In Lexington Luminance LLC v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com, 3-18-cv-01074, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
Court Finds Prior Finding of No Literal Infringement Bars Later Claim for Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
In Galderma Laboratories, LP et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al, 1-16-cv-00207 (DED August 31, 2018, Order) (Stark, USDJ), Judge Stark of the District of Delaware recently found that a plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing claims for patent infringement of two drug patents under a doctrine of equivalents theory based on a finding of no literal infringement in a prior case even though a doctrine of equivalents theory was not asserted in that case.
Federal Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity Does Not Apply in Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO
In Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Native American tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) arm of the USPTO.
SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu Has Affected Cases in Federal Courts in Addition to Those at the PTAB
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) must issue a final written decision addressing each and every patent claim challenged in an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petition if review is granted.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules America Invents Acts Reviews by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board arm of the Patent and Trademark Office are Constitutional
In a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Finds Defendants Have Not Committed Acts of Infringement Sufficient to Establish Venue
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Makes Rare FRAND Royalty Rate Determination
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently issued its opinion in TCL Communications v. Ericsson (SACV 14-341 JVS(DFMx) and CV 15-2370 JVS (DFMx)) on standard-essential patents and whether a commit to license them was on terms that are fair,
Federal Circuit Clarifies Waiver of Venue Issue in Light of TC Heartland, but Issues Still Remain For District Courts to Address
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute.
Allegan’s Restasis Patents Invalidated by a Federal District Court Even After Transfer to Native American Tribe and Sovereign Immunity Claim.
In Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (EDTX October 16, 2017 Order), a Federal District Court recently invalidated several patents covering Allergan’s dry-eye drug Restasis.
Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify its Former Counsel as Counsel for Defendant in a Patent Litigation Action After Plaintiff Delayed Filing its Disqualification Motion for Over A Year After Discovering the Conflict.
In Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com, Inc., 3-17-cv-03022 (CAND August 24, 2017, Order) (Tigar, USDJ) the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated’s (“Eolas”) motion to disqualify its former counsel,
Repeated Discovery Failures and Abusive Litigation Tactics Warrant Terminating Sanctions, Treble Damages, Attorney Fees and Permanent Injunction Against Defendant In Patent Litigation Case.
In TASER International, Inc. v. PhaZZer Electronics, Inc. et al, 6-16-cv-00366 (FLMD July 21, 2017, Order), a Florida District Court took the drastic step of entering a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Taser,
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Early Notice For Biosimilars
In SANDOZ INC. v. AMGEN INC. et al., the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion ruled that biosimilar makers can give their required 180-day statutory notice of sales before their products win approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
Federal Circuit Holds Non-Public Sales Can Still Satisfy the On-Sale Bar for Patents under the AIA
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) did not change the meaning of the on-sale bar provision in 35 U.S.C.
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Laches Defense in Patent Cases
In SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al., the United States Supreme Court held that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for patent infringement damages brought within U.S.C §286’s 6-year limitations period.
Northern District of California Revises Local Patent Rules
On January 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued revisions to its Local Patent Rules requiring early disclosure of damages-related discovery and contentions. The revised rules are effective immediately in all patent cases pending in the Northern District.
Law Firm Survives Disqualification Motion in Florida Patent Infringement Lawsuit
In Lanard Toys Limited v. Toys “R” Us, Inc. et al, 3-15-cv-00849 (FLMD December 16, 2016, Order) (Barksdale, MJ), a patent infringement matter in Florida District Court, the court denied defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiff’s new counsel for simultaneously representing defendant in an unrelated case.
Federal Circuit Takes A Common Law Approach to “Abstract Idea” Determinations in Alice Cases
In Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom Inc. et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld four software patents against a patent-eligibility challenge, finding that the patents do not claim an “abstract idea.” The patent challenge was under the frame work set out by the U.S.
Federal Circuit Rules the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Can Consider New Evidence During AIA Review Trial
On September 26, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to review in a unanimous en banc decision a panel Federal Circuit decision affirming that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) at the Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) could hear new evidence during a trial,
Federal Circuit Holds the PTAB Must Apply Narrower Phillips Claim Construction Standard to Patents that Expire During Pendency of Re-exam
In In re CSB-System Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1832 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that patents that expire during a pending re-examination before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) should be examined under the Phillips standard of claim construction,
En Banc Federal Circuit Rules A Product Must be the Subject of a Commercial Sale or Offer for Sale to Trigger On-Sale Bar
On July 11, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a unanimous en banc decision in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira Inc., Federal Circuit case number 2014-1469,
Google’s Fair Use Defense Thwarts Oracle’s Attempt to Recover $9 Billion in Copyright Case
In a high-profile case, a jury recently found that Google’s use of portions of Oracle’s Java software code was allowable under the fair use doctrine and thus did not constitute copyright infringement.
Court Orders Plaintiff to Pay Defendants’ $8 Million in Attorney’s Fees in Patent Row
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s twin 2014 decisions in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. attorney’s fees awards are becoming more common in patent cases.
Apple Argues It Should Not Be Compelled to Write Software for the F.B.I.
On February 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order compelling Apple, Inc. to provide technical assistance to the F.B.I.
; ?>){kind=logo}
