This spring Tabet DiVito & Rothstein submitted a brief on behalf of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) as amicus curiae, in support of a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 16-1288 (2017).
I am honored to have drafted the brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, U.S., No. 16-341 (2017), which concerns the appropriate scope of venue in patent infringement cases.
The brief supports the Federal Circuit interpretation of the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” applicable in the patent venue statute later in that chapter at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
Floyd Norris writes a worthwhile business column for The New York Times. He’s done yeoman work exposing corporate fraud, for one thing.
Norris’ article of October of 2013, “Extracting a Toll From a Patent ‘Troll’,” offers a good and detailed summary (as good as it gets in mainstream media) of the issues at stake in Octane, now up for Supreme Court review.
Really? No underlying facts at all? Never? Is anyone else surprised about the outcome of Lighting Ballast?
I am. I thought there would be some—though maybe negligible—situation where the district court was forced to rely on extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony. And the district court’s decision with respect to that evidence would be reviewed for clear error.
What is the business of the Federal Circuit? What should it be? And how do decisions at the CAFC—and wider developments in patent law—affect America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace?
From the day of its inception in October of 1982, the role and rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction but a nationwide reach, have been the subject of much debate.
Alice is in line to get a look in the Supreme Court’s mirror. What will she see?
Long-time commentator Lyle Denniston has just published a short piece on SCOTUSblog.com about what promises to be a critically important patent ruling at the Supreme Court, in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International.