-
Sep 10, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a
patent challenger's appeal in an inter
partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet
the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III
standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions
Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore,
Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by
designation).
-
Aug 30, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).
-
Aug 29, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).
-
Aug 29, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).
-
Jun 3, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a party that voluntarily elects to pursue parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and the district court is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) in connection with the Board proceedings, nor does § 285 entitle a party to hold opposing counsel jointly and severally liable for fees. Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos.
-
May 30, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | John Henson |Lillian Spetrino |Jason Hennessey |Frank Gerratana
All this dirty data can have detrimental effects on law firms. Organizations are losing clients and sales because of duplicate or incomplete contact data. This information is from the State of CRM Data Management report. Having wrong or old information can hurt a company’s relationships with customers and affect their earnings. Regularly updating and cleaning their contact databases is crucial for businesses to ensure accurate and reliable information.
-
May 30, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a party that voluntarily elects to pursue parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and the district court is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) in connection with the Board proceedings, nor does § 285 entitle a party to hold opposing counsel jointly and severally liable for fees. Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos.
-
May 30, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a party that voluntarily elects to pursue parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and the district court is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) in connection with the Board proceedings, nor does § 285 entitle a party to hold opposing counsel jointly and severally liable for fees. Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos.
-
May 18, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | Lillian Spetrino
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of attorney fees, finding that neither inequitable conduct nor a conflict of interest rendered the case exceptional given the limited factual record following a stipulated dismissal in a patent case. United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., Case No. 22-1363 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2023) (Lourie, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.). United Cannabis Corporation (UCANN) sued Pure Hemp for patent infringement.
-
Apr 20, 2023 | 
worldtrademarkreview.com | Lillian Spetrino
In re The New York Times Company (90106071, 90112154, 90112577, 90115155, 90115491 and 90115337; 30 March 2023), the TTAB has redefined what it takes to meet the “goods in trade” requirement for registrability in the age of the Internet by holding up the Lens.com three-factor test as the universal legal standard.
