Ben Franklin, certainly. Abe Lincoln, sure. But the King? Not so fast, gunslinger.

In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that the PTAB definition of a CBM was inconsistent with the statutory language of the America Invents Act (AIA).

Enterprise Holdings sought to register a proposed new version of the familiar mark they use for their consumer automobile rental brand ENTERPRISE, but with a key difference.

The America Invents Act (AIA) introduces several new procedures for challenging the validity of an issued patent before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with the intention of reducing the time and expense associated with litigation.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,856 ("the '856 patent") are nonobvious in a final written decision.

The patent owner petitioners in Halo and Stryker assert that the Federal Circuit has impermissibly restricted the discretion of district courts to only enhance damages under § 284 if the infringement is found to be willful.

On Friday March 18, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a pair of appeals involving the contours of personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman litigation ..

When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) adopted the America Invents Act (AIA) "first-to-file" system on March 16, the following scenarios became reality.

United States law has long held that marking a product with a patent number gives the public constructive notice of a patent. If a patented product is not marked with the patent number by the patent owner, damages for infringement will be limited to the period after the patent owner gives actual notice to an infringer.

On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") denied Google's petition for rehearing en banc. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., ___ F.3d. ___, Case No. 2015-1812.

Because Vimeo employees were aware of infringing content, a judge ruled the company could be held liable.

The Federal Circuit held that the Board should have applied the Philips standard of claim construction when the patent at issue expired during reexamination.

35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) requires that an accused infringer supply "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination outside the United States.

On August 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued, after remand from the Supreme Court, its opinion in The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406, slip opinion (Fed. Cir. August 16, 2012) ("Myriad").

The America Invents Act (AIA), passed in 2011, significantly changes who may file for patent applications and the inventor’s oath or declaration filed with an application.

In the United States, patent term extension is available under the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Restoration Act, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act.

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the legal test for awarding attorney fees, issuing decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.

The Supreme Court changed the legal test for awarding attorney fees, in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management System.

The Supreme Court changed the legal test for awarding attorney fees.

On September 16, 2012, the next wave of changes under the America Invents Act (AIA) took effect.