-
Jan 14, 2025 | 
mondaq.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated andremanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding thatthe Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoningregarding a motivation to combine prior art references. PaloAlto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Case No.23-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec.
-
Jan 10, 2025 | 
jdsupra.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding a motivation to combine prior art references. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec.
-
Jan 9, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Loren Opper |Christie R. Galinski |Keval Amin |Eric Troutman
Taxpayers had mixed success in two recent research credit cases in the United States Tax Court. In Smith v. Commissioner,[1] the taxpayer was an architectural firm. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial on the issue of whether the taxpayer’s clients funded its research activities. In Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner,[2] disputed questions of fact proceeded to trial.
-
Jan 9, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding a motivation to combine prior art references. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec.
-
Jan 9, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Keval Amin |Eric Troutman |Jodi Benassi |Joseph J. Lazzarotti
Skip to main content January 09, 2025 Volume XV, Number 9 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found. Trending News Holding Fourth: Insights from the Bench: A Conversation with Retired Fourth Circuit Judge Andre M.
-
Jan 9, 2025 | 
natlawreview.com | Keval Amin |Eric Troutman |Jodi Benassi |Joseph J. Lazzarotti
On December 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a rare en banc decision vacated the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity rules (Rules 5605(f) and Rule 5606).
-
Dec 9, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district
court's amended final judgment and reinstated its prior final
judgment, finding that the district court overstepped its narrow
mandate on remand, directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit's earlier decision. In that
earlier decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's
finding of trademark infringement but modified the scope of the
injunction, approving it only in part. Rolex Watch USA,
Incorporated v.
-
Dec 6, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s amended final judgment and reinstated its prior final judgment, finding that the district court overstepped its narrow mandate on remand, directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision. In that earlier decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of trademark infringement but modified the scope of the injunction, approving it only in part. Rolex Watch USA, Incorporated v.
-
Dec 5, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Keval Amin
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s amended final judgment and reinstated its prior final judgment, finding that the district court overstepped its narrow mandate on remand, directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision. In that earlier decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of trademark infringement but modified the scope of the injunction, approving it only in part. Rolex Watch USA, Incorporated v.
-
Oct 4, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Keval Amin
The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order vacating its previous panel decision upholding a district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial on damages. In that decision, the Federal Circuit found that the plaintiff’s damages expert adequately demonstrated the economic comparability of prior license agreements to a hypothetical negotiation between the parties. Now, the Court has granted the defendant’s petition for rehearing en banc.
