Supreme Court: Supplying a Single Component of a Patented Invention from the U.S. Is Not Infringement Under Section 271(f)(1)

Today, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., the Supreme Court held that a single component of a patented invention, even if “important,” does not trigger liability for infringement under Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act. Section 271(f)(1) provides: Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Decide Patent Infringement Suit Venue Issue with Potentially Immense Implications

The U.S. Supreme Court this week granted TC Heartland, LLC’s (“Heartland’s”) petition for a writ of certiorari regarding the patent infringement venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).  Heartland appealed the Federal Circuit’s refusal to dismiss the case or transfer a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Heartland from Delaware to Indiana, where Heartland is incorporated.  The Supreme Court agreed to address “Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).”  If the Supreme Court answers the question in the affirmative, venue options likely will   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Dismantles $400M Apple Design Patent Award Against Samsung

In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States today reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding Apple Inc.’s nearly $400 million design patent award against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Apple secured the award after a jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design patents covering the iPhone’s iconic front face with rounded corners and 16 colorful icons on a black screen. Section 289 of the Patent Act permits a design patent holder to recover an infringer’s total profits from the sale of any “article of manufacture” to which the infringing design has been applied.  The Federal Circuit upheld   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Consider Patent Exhaustion for International Sales

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the patent exhaustion case, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Docket No. 15-1189.  The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could significantly affect patent and patent-related transactions both domestically and internationally. Generally speaking, under the “patent exhaustion” doctrine, also known as the “first sale” doctrine, a patent holder’s rights in a patented item exhaust or terminate with the initial authorized sale of that patented item.  In other words, once a patented item is sold, the patent holder cannot control the resale, use, or other disposition of that item. Currently, however,   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Octane Fitness and Highmark Apply to Ninth Circuit Attorney Fee Awards under the Lanham Act

On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that district courts analyzing a request for attorney fees under the Lanham Act should consider the totality of the circumstances, as set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014).  Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”  In determining whether a case is “exceptional,” courts in the Ninth Circuit are now required to apply a less “precise rule or formula,” and look to   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Trademark Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article: