Intellectual Property > IP Newsflash
15 Sep '17

On September 9, 2017, an Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation holding that a plaintiff was estopped from asserting its patent infringement claims because statements made in response to an inter partes review (IPR) petition constituted a disclaimer.

Read More

18 Aug '17

In a report and recommendation issued Tuesday, August 15, 2017, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas stated that failure to provide a patent examiner with a copy of a relevant post-grant review (PGR) institution decision does not make a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

Read More

29 Jun '17

The Supreme Court’s recent holding in TC Heartland settled several points of law: first, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions; second, the broader venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) are not applicable to patent infringement cases; and third, TC Heartland reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision that reaffirmed VE Holding and held that “the current version of § 1391 does not contain any indication that Congress intended to alter the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco.” In the aftermath of TC Heartland, there have been inconsistent approaches to the question of waiver and whether the recent Supreme Court decision constitutes new law. Two such decisions are detailed, below.

Read More

23 Feb '17

On February 13, 2017, Judge Roy Payne issued a report and recommendation to grant DeVilbiss Healthcare, LLC’s (“DeVilbiss”) motion to dismiss My Health, Inc.’s (“My Health”) complaint, holding that the asserted patent failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Read More

28 Sep '16

On August 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge John Love in the Eastern District of Texas denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. These defenses and counterclaims related to plaintiffs’ alleged duty to disclose standard-essential patents (SEPs) to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Judge Love denied the motion upon a finding that a factual question remained regarding whether the plaintiffs had a duty to disclose the asserted patents to the IEEE.

Read More