Banner Witcoff

Darrell G. Mottley, the chairman of the D.C. Bar Global Legal Practice Task Force, discusses the importance of new recommendations that were released in May as part of the Task Force’s interim report in an article on the D.C. Bar’s website. These recommendations outline a series of short-term and long-term proposals that seek to expand…

PATENT OFFICE’S CONTINUATION FILING DEADLINE RULE UPHELD BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT By Ernest V. Linek Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the decision of the Delaware district court in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 1:12-cv-00259, 2015 WL 627425 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2015). That case held that to…

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDES CUOZZO SPEED V. LEE By Robert H. Resis Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed v. Lee, Inc., No. 15-446. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in full, thus resolving two significant issues for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America…

Rajit Kapur weighs in on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in Law360. Please click here to read the article, “Attys React to High Court’s Copyright Attys’ Fee Ruling.” Subscription is required.

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, that it is appropriate for a court to give substantial weight to the reasonableness of a losing party’s position when deciding whether to award attorney’s…

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 awarding attorneys’ fees in Kirtsaeng.” Subscription is required.

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. Ct. 2347 (2014), a survey shows that almost all of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions on patent eligibility in the non-life…

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 Supreme Court issued an unanimous decision in companion cases Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., which rejected 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 enhanced damages in Law360. Please click here to read, “Justices’ Enhanced Damages Ruling Gives Patents More Teeth.”

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 or impose burdens on design patentees that would weaken Section 289 with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. The IDSA filed its amicus brief…