Inter Partes Review (IPR), created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284 (2011), has become a prominent part of patent litigation. Accused infringers can challenge asserted patents based on printed prior art by petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to “institute” an IPR “trial.” An IPR before the PTAB is an administrative proceeding with no right to a jury trial on patent validity. If instituted, non-Article III judges receive evidence and arguments and determine whether the patent is valid. Many IPRs arise out of pending District court patent infringement litigation and parties to an IPR proceeding can be estopped from re-litigating issues that were raised or could have been raised in the PTAB. At the discretion of the federal judge, district court litigation may be stayed pending the outcome of the IPR. Ultimately, IPRs can be less expensive than district court validity determinations and often contribute to efficient resolution of patent disputes.
Continue Reading

Product Liability Monitor

November 2, 2017
New Developments
Mr. Gorsuch Goes to Washington: Is Chevron Endangered?
By Tierra Jones

Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 holding in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”), courts have looked to federal administrative agencies in interpreting regulatory statutes. Under this doctrine, commonly referred to as “Chevron deference,” courts adopt

gavel courtOn October 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri reversed a $72 million judgment that was previously rendered against Johnson & Johnson, relying on a United States Supreme Court decision that was issued earlier this year. In June, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowed the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol Myers Squib Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), holding that that each plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case must establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant for his or her individual claim. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the plaintiff’s verdict that was issued in February 2016 in Estate of Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ED104580. 
Continue Reading

courthouseIf your employees are part of the 25 million who have arbitration agreements that agree to bring claims in individual arbitration alone, then you will want to watch for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. The Court heard arguments in the case last Monday and several of the Justices

PatentThe doctrine of patent venue continues its rapid evolution after the Supreme Court’s recent decision TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017).  In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court upended decades of established precedent that allowed for broad assertions of venue in patent cases and found that for purposes of the specific patent infringement venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a domestic corporation resided only in the state under whose laws it was incorporated. TC Heartland is expected to greatly reduce the volume of patent litigation brought in the Eastern District of Texas, a fast-track venue that has found great favor amongst patent assertion entities.

Continue Reading

Product Liability Monitor

September 8, 2017
New Developments
The SELF DRIVE Act Motors Through Congress
By Mark Pratzel

On September 6, 2017 the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3388, also known as the “Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act,” also known as the “SELF DRIVE Act.” The broad, bipartisan support for this

trademarkAccording to BrandFinance’s annual report on the world’s most valuable brands, the GOOGLE trademark is the most valuable brand in the world; worth over $100,000 million. So how is it that the world’s most valuable brand is the subject of a claim that it has become generic and is no longer protectable?

When a trademark owner develops a product category that is new to the marketplace, its success in branding can sometimes be its demise if the brand loses its significance as a trademark and becomes the generic name for the product itself. Think aspirin, escalator, laundromat, and kerosene.

While all of us should be so lucky to develop a brand that becomes so well-known it becomes vulnerable to a trip to the trademark graveyard, this case is a good reminder to all brand owners to have processes in place to avoid such a finding.


Continue Reading

immigrationIn agreeing to review two rulings by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on President Trump’s March 6, 2017, Executive Order, the Supreme Court reinstated certain provisions of the Executive Order that the lower courts had blocked. The March 6th Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” was to suspend visa issuance for individuals from six countries, including Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. This provision, often referred to as the “travel ban,” effectively prohibits travel to the United States for individuals from the six affected countries.

Continue Reading