
Articles
-
1 month ago |
ipwatchdog.com | Gene Quinn |Eileen McDermott |Steve Brachmann |Curtis Dodd
“The reason for Rasheed being asked to move from the Solicitor’s Office to the PTAB is because the PTAB is a bit shorthanded, with multiple vacancies on the senior leadership team at the PTAB and recent retirements at the PTAB by individuals who resigned as a part of the deferred resignation program offered by President Trump to federal employees.” IPWatchdog has learned that Farheena Rasheed has been asked by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to serve as one of the Acting...
-
1 month ago |
ipwatchdog.com | Eileen McDermott |Steve Brachmann |Curtis Dodd |Chris Dubuc
“That conclusion does not follow from the premise describing the claim language.”- CAFC opinionThe Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Kimberly Moore, on Monday authored a short precedential decision vacating and remanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had found certain claims of Sisvel’s data transmission patent to be unpatentable.
-
1 month ago |
ipwatchdog.com | Curtis Dodd |Chris Dubuc |Steve Brachmann
IPWatchdog LIVE Moves to March in 2025: Click for details “Contrary to the CAFC’s views, the OUII’s cellular brief found that ‘there is nothing in the ETSI Policy that prohibits Ericsson from seeking injunctive relief in jurisdictions around the world’.”Last fall, we wrote about the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision in the matter of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, Ericsson, Incl. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc.
-
Nov 11, 2024 |
ipwatchdog.com | Curtis Dodd |Chris Dubuc |Eileen McDermott
Support IPWatchdog with an individual sponsorship: Click here “The fact that no other court or government agency has found such a contractual obligation to exist…in the approximately 30 years since the current ETSI IPR Licensing Declaration was first deployed makes the CAFC’s decision quite unexpected.”A recent decision in the matter of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, Ericsson, Incl. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et.
-
May 8, 2024 |
ipwatchdog.com | Curtis Dodd |Chris Dubuc
“[A]ffirmative defenses go to the issue of liability, whereas damages assume liability and consider appropriate compensation for such liability …. As such, considering FRAND-based defenses, if they were to exist, at the damages phase, is confusing.”Earlier this year, a jury trial was held in the matter of G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG (E.D. Texas).
Try JournoFinder For Free
Search and contact over 1M+ journalist profiles, browse 100M+ articles, and unlock powerful PR tools.
Start Your 7-Day Free Trial →