Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent.  Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the…

Petitioner Medtronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a…

In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009.  Petitioner PRISM argued the…

Authors: Diane M. Reed and Diana Wade Publication: World Trademark Review Daily Excerpt: In Target Brands Inc v Artificer Life Corp (Opposition Nos 91206421 and 91206422), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board…

By: Brent M. Dougal In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung litigation, Apple won a $1 billion jury verdict against Samsung. The verdict was largely based on Apple’s design patents for the iPhone. Though the amount was…

By: Robb Roby, Partner in the Orange County office Yesterday the Supreme Court issued the Aereo opinion and decided that, given its activities, Aereo is substantially similar to a cable…

The third step in bringing your medical device to market is to understand whether you can practice your invention. By Gerard von Hoffmann and Bryan Wahl This article is part three of a…

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. – What You Need to Know Today the Supreme Court ruled that streaming broadcast television signals to subscribers without paying for the programs…

By Diane M. Reed, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Orange County Download the PDF In Boi Na Brasa LLC v Terra Sul Corporation a/k/a Churrascaria Boi Na Brasa (Concurrent…

By: Irfan Lateef In the recent cases OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. and HIGHMARK INC. v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., the U.S. Supreme Court empowered…