U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES IN KIRTSAENG V. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. By Rajit Kapur Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 15-375,
Ernest V. Linek discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in Intellectual Property Magazine. Please click here to read the article, “SCOTUS clarifies standard for
ALICE TURNS TWO By Aseet Patel and Peter Nigrelli As we approach the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. V. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. AND STRYKER CORP. V. ZIMMER, INC. — U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S FRAMEWORK FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES UNDER § 284 By Matthew P. Becker Yesterday, the
Matthew P. Becker discusses whether the Supreme Court’s June 13 decision inHalo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., will result in more awards of
Banner & Witcoff attorneys Robert S. Katz and Jeffrey Chang represent the Industrial Designers Society of America in its effort to persuade the Supreme Court that it should not require apportionment
Banner & Witcoff recently expanded its pro bono efforts with the representation of Ellie’s Hats, a nonprofit organization in Virginia that offers children with cancer and their families care and
ALL SOFTWARE INVENTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY ABSTRACT: ENFISH, LLC V. MICROSOFT CORP. By Peter Nigrelli and Aseet Patel Not since late 2014 has the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Banner Witcoff attorney Marc S. Cooperman describes his first Supreme Court experience in the May issue of the Federal Circuit Bar Association Bench & Bar Newsletter. His article, “A Midwestern Patent Lawyer
Banner & Witcoff is recognized for patent prosecution in Illinois and Washington, D.C., in the 2016 Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000. Four attorneys were also recognized in this year’s edition: Ross A. Dannenberg,
