Search

The article discusses the implications of standard essential patents (SEPs) in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which was launched in June 2023. It highlights the increasing number of SEP-related cases being filed in the UPC, particularly in the electronics sector. The article also mentions the involvement of renowned global industry players in these cases. Additionally, it mentions the emergence of non-practicing entities (NPEs) asserting patents in the UPC, and the development of relevant case law in the court. The article concludes by stating that the UPC has the potential to become a popular venue for resolving patent disputes in Europe. The given text provides links to various legal documents and articles related to recent rulings and decisions in the European patent court. These documents offer insights and analysis on topics such as transparency in the court system and the implications for litigants. The text suggests that these resources may be of interest to library patrons conducting research on intellectual property litigation in Europe. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the issue of injunctive relief for standard essential patents (SEPs) in international jurisdictions. SEPs are patents that are essential for compliance with an industry standard. When SEP holders and potential licensees fail to reach an agreement on licensing terms, litigation may ensue. The article examines the legal approaches to issuing injunctions and calculating fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates for SEPs in various international jurisdictions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union, German courts, and UK courts. The varying approaches highlight the importance of considering jurisdiction-specific factors when litigating FRAND issues. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses patent litigation in the U.S. as of May 2014. Parties have filed more than 1,139 inter partes review (IPR) petitions and over 160 covered business method review (CBMR) petitions as of May 1 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court issued a trio of precedential orders that dealt with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions on whether or not to institute an IPR.

14 IP Litigator MARCH/APRIL 2021 After Fintiv: The Continuing Evolution of Discretionary Denial at the PTAB Gracie K. Mills, Derek McCorquindale, and Daniel Cooley 1 Gracie Mills is an associate with Finnegan and focuses her practice on patent prosecution and postgrant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a partner with Finnegan, Daniel Cooley helps companies litigate intellectual property disputes in US district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Following NHK Spring, many patent owners began urging the PTAB to deny petitions in light of co-pending district court litigations, and many petitioners saw petitions denied on this ground. 35 D. Fintiv Factor 4: Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding Fintiv Factor 4 explores the extent to which arguments and evidence before the district court and the PTAB will overlap. [Extracted from the article]

As a partner with Finnegan, Daniel Cooley helps companies litigate intellectual property disputes in US district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). 39 The primary role of the ITC's ALJs is to conduct the trial phase of ITC investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (section 337 investigations). JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2021 IP Litigator 3 The Potential Impact of Arthrex on the TTAB and ITC Derek McCorquindale, Brandon Andersen, and Daniel Cooley 1 Brandon Andersen is an associate with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he focuses on patent prosecution and litigation in the areas of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, clean energy, and medical devices. The purpose of this article is to review the appointment process, oversight, and responsibilities of other IP tribunals - including the Trademark T rial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and the U .S. International Trade Commission (ITC) - and consider the implications of Arthrex, if any, on their constitutionality. [Extracted from the article]