By: Tony Salmo On December 15, 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. Congress passed and the Supreme Court adopted amendments to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55, and 84. The amendment to rule 84 effectively eliminated the Appendix of Forms. On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court approved amendments for review by congress for: Federal Rules of Appellate Practice, Rules 4, 5, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28.1, 29, 32, 35, and 40, and Forms 1, 5, and 6, new Form 7 and new Appendix; Bankruptcy Rules 1010, 1011,...
The Latest From Kinney and Lange
SHARETag Archive: Litigation
Summary of Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a Potential Impact on NPEs
June 2, 2016
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard of Review for Claim Construction
November 1, 2015
■ Nicholas J. Peterka In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___, No. 13-854 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must apply the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made during the court’s patent claim construction. At dispute was the meaning of the term “molecular weight.” Each party presented extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony and, relying on patent owner Teva’s expert, the district court determined that “molecular weight” was not indefinite. Sandoz appealed the claim construction to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed de novo...
The Federal Circuit’s Second En Banc Decision In Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks
November 1, 2015
■ John P. Fandrey In August of 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its second en banc decision in Akamai Techs., Inc., v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417 (Fed. Cir., August 13, 2015), a case which began in 2006. The underlying issue is whether there is liability for so-called “divided” or “split” infringement involving multiple actors. The Federal Circuit explained that in patent infringement cases the acts of one actor may be attributed to another where the other “conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps...
B&B HARDWARE: TTAB PROCEEDINGS CAN CREATE ISSUE PRECLUSION
May 1, 2015
■ Andrew W. Werner On March 24, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015); holding that when trademark usages adjudicated by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) are materially the same as those before a district court, issue preclusion should apply so long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met. B&B Hardware stems from a 1996 trademark registration by Hargis Industries, Inc. (“Hargis”) for the SEALTITE mark for “self-piercing and self-drilling metal screws for use in the manufacture of metal and post-frame buildings.” B&B Hardware,...