TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” The decision reversed the Federal Circuit and confirmed decades-old Supreme Court precedent that the patent venue statute, § 1400(b), does not incorporate a broader definition of residency found in the general venue statute, § 1391(c).

Life Technologies v. Promega

On Feb. 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit erred when it decided that shipment outside the United States of one component of a multicomponent invention could violate 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1).

Impression Products v. Lexmark International

On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court changed the law of patent exhaustion in Impression Products v. Lexmark International and limited the ability of patent owners to control the use of patented products once they are sold.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed v. Lee, Inc., affirming the Federal Circuit’s judgment in full, thus resolving two significant issues for inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under the America Invents Act.

America Invents Act

On Sept. 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most significant patent reform legislation implemented by Congress in the last 60 years.

Alice v. CLS Bank

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l that all the patent claims in the case, meaning all method, system and “computer-readable medium” claims, were not patent eligible.

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker v. Zimmer

On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision in cases Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., which rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid, two-part test for willful infringement and awarding enhanced damages in patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 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 fees in a case brought under the Copyright Act as long as “all other relevant factors” are taken into account.

Matal v. Tam

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Contact Banner Witcoff Share on LinkedIn View this page as a pdf Share on Twitter Email this page Print this page