Attorneys Tom Cowan and Gerard von Hoffmann discuss Masimo’s recent patent law win in the Orange County Business Journal.
Ron Schoenbaum and Rick Park co-authored “Ten Strategies for Aggressively Building a Patent Portfolio,” which was published in the Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry (MD+DI) online magazine. This article provides…
Attorneys Jonathan Bachand and Nate Luman authored “7 Tips For Using Foreign Language Documents In IPR,” which was published in Law360. Read the full article on Law360’s website >> (subscription…
Partner Mark Benedict and Associate David Schmidt presented at the IP Life Sciences Exchange in Munich, Germany.
Knobbe Martens is pleased to announce that Managing Partner Steven Nataupsky and General Counsel Wendy Peterson have been named to the Orange County Business Journal’s inaugural OC500. The compendium, published…
In Smith v Entrepreneur Media Inc, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Scott Smith’s action on the grounds that the district court properly dismissed…
Knobbe Martens, one of the leading intellectual property law firms in the United States, is pleased to announce that its longstanding client, Masimo Corp., has entered a multi-year business partnership…
Knobbe Martens has been honored with a series of accolades from Legal Media Group’s (LMG) Life Sciences division. In the 2016 LMG Life Sciences rankings, the firm ranked as “highly…
Inphi to Acquire ClariPhy Communications, Inc., A Leading Provider of Coherent DSP; Combined Product Portfolio Supports Service Provider and Cloud Customer Success Inphi Corporation (NYSE: IPHI), a leading provider of…
在专利申请期间撤回权利要求可触发申请过程禁反言 在UCB, Inc.诉 Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.一案（上诉编号：2015-1957）中，联邦巡回法院认为,申请过程禁反言亦可适用于没有缩小具体拟定权利要求的情况。 虽然权利要求通用术语是根据其已知技术领域来解释,联邦巡回法院认为,专利申请人其后不能获得在审查期间已被审查员驳回继而被申请人撤回的权利要求。 联邦巡回法院认同地方法院就权利要求作出的解释,该解释缩小了专利说明书中特定种类的通用术语范围,这是因为申请人在专利申请期间已撤回了针对附加种类的权利要求。 故意性并不一定意味着案件异常性 在Stryker Corporation诉Zimmer, Inc.一案（上诉编号：2013-1668）中，联邦巡回法院认为,Seagate案中针对故意行为作出的加重损害赔偿金和律师费裁决并不一定意味着在Halo案中针对故意行为而裁定加重损害赔偿金和费用的裁决具有合理性。 最高法院一并裁决了Halo案和Stryker案,并推翻了Seagate案和当时针对专利故意侵权行为和加重损害赔偿金的适用法规。 Seagate案对故意侵权的测试需要明确且据令人信服的证据,其被控侵权人客观来说是不顾后果且被控侵权人已知道或应该知道侵权的风险。 在Halo案和Stryker案中,最高法院认为,如不考虑客观上不顾后果的行为,就单以主观上故意性即可导致加重损害赔偿裁决,且最高法院并摒弃需要明确且据令人信服的证据,反而支持优势证据之标准。 在本案发回重审时,联邦巡回法院维持陪审团作出的主观故意侵权裁决,认为根据更明确和据有说服力的证据之标准所认定的故意性足以匹敌根据较低优势标准所认定的故意性。 但是,联邦巡回法院根据Halo案撤销了加重损害赔偿裁决,并将案件发回地方法院重新审议,允许地方法院根据案件具体情况酌情作出加重损害赔偿金裁决。 联邦巡回法院还撤销了仅基于故意侵权行为认定而作出的律师费裁决并将其发回重审。 认定其故意性并不一定解读为案件具有异常性。 根据Octane Fitness,案件是否具有异常性由法院根据具体情况逐案裁定。 …
