Sanctions – SoCal IP Law Institute

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of June 13, 2022 – CAFC re: Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and CAFC re: Damages Calculation.

Please join us on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action regarding Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and regarding Damages Calculation. For CAFC Clarifies Analysis of Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness, Affirms PTAB’s Denial of Sanctions, please see: ClearOne v Shure. For [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-06-09T19:48:08-07:00June 9th, 2022|Invalidity, Patent, Sanctions, Written Description, Damages, indefiniteness|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of June 13, 2022 – CAFC re: Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and CAFC re: Damages Calculation

Please join us on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action regarding Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and regarding Damages Calculation For Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions please see: ClearOne v Shure. For Damages Calculation please see: Pavo v. Kingston. [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-06-09T19:23:49-07:00March 17th, 2022|indefiniteness, Invalidity, Sanctions, Written Description, Attorney's Fees, Damages, Enablement|0 Comments

Prior Art Status of Printed Publications and Unclean Hands in TM Infringement

On Monday, August 12, Michael Harris will conduct a discussion of two cases, one dealing with the prior art status of a printed publication, and the other about unclean hands as a defense to trademark infringement. The 2021, Ninth Circuit case of Metal Jeans, Inc. v. Metal Sport, Inc. (case here) is the unclean hands case. [...]

By SoCal IP|2021-08-13T14:05:37-07:00August 13th, 2021|Use in Commerce, Damages, Litigation, Patent, Sanctions, Trademark, TTAB|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: December 17, 2012 :: Withdrawing Terminal Disclaimers and Rule 11 Sanctions

We will be discussing two Federal Circuit cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, December 17, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. In Re Yamazaki, Case No. 2012-1086 (Fed. Cir. December 6, 2012) (attached). During the prosecution of U.S. Patent 6,180,991, Applicant Yamazaki filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double [...]

By SoCal IP|2012-12-13T23:44:20-08:00December 13th, 2012|Patent, Reissue, Sanctions, Attorney's Fees, Contributory Infringement, Induced Infringement, Joint Infringement|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 30, 2012 :: Monetary Attorney Sanctions and Patentable Subject Matter

We will be discussing two Federal Circuit cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 30, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. Rates Tech., Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., Case No. 2011-1384 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012) (attached). In a patent infringement suit related to systems for converting existing telephone systems to [...]

By SoCal IP|2012-07-27T18:37:05-07:00July 27th, 2012|Patent, Sanctions, Attorney's Fees, Contempt, Malpractice|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 23, 2012 :: Scope of Waiver and Attorney Fees

We will be discussing one Federal Circuit case and one California Court of Appeals case during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 23, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. Wi-Lan, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2011-1626 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2012) (attached). Wi-LAN's attorneys at Kilpatrick Townsend (formerly Townsend & [...]

By SoCal IP|2012-07-19T22:44:35-07:00July 19th, 2012|Patent, Sanctions, Attorney's Fees, Contempt|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: August 1, 2011

We will be discussing the following two cases in our weekly meeting on Monday, August 1, 2011. Brief synopses of the two cases are presented below. TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. EDriver Inc. (9th Cir. 7/28/2011) (attached) In an action arising from a very close imitation of the state DMV's website by a private, commercial website and [...]

By SoCal IP|2011-07-29T19:05:54-07:00July 29th, 2011|Patent, Sanctions, Exceptional Case, Inequitable Conduct|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 25, 2011 :: Exceptional Cases Under 35 U.S.C. 285 and The USPTO’s Proposed Changes to 37 C.F.R. 1.56(b)

We will be discussing one district court case awarding attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 in a patent suit and the USPTO's proposed new rule 1.56(b) after Therasense. We will discuss the case and proposed rule in our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 25, 2011. Brief synopses are presented below. Precision Links, [...]

By SoCal IP|2011-07-22T18:10:41-07:00July 22nd, 2011|Patent, Sanctions, Exceptional Case, Inequitable Conduct|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 11, 2011 :: Fed. Cir. R. 28(d) Sanctions and Likelihood of Confusion Analysis

We will be discussing two recent, relevant opinions in our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011. The first case is a decision imposes sanctions on an over-zealous use of confidential designations in Federal Circuit briefing. The second case affirms a TTAB decision to deny a trademark opposition. A brief synopsis of [...]

By SoCal IP|2011-04-08T17:30:59-07:00April 8th, 2011|Sanctions, Opposition|0 Comments