On April 16, 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia jury verdict that the asserted claims of two Verizon patents (US Patents 6,282,574 and 6,104,711) were invalid and the asserted claims of four Verizon patents (US Patents 6,430,275; 6,292,481; 6,137,869 and 6,636,597) [...]
Tag Archives | CAFC
Federal Circuit Equates Specific Intent with Deliberate Indifference for Inducement to Infringe a Patent
IN SEB S.A. and T-FAL Corporation v. Montgomery Ward et al., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) considered the appeal of a host of issues concerning the infringement of US Patent 4,995,312 (“the ‘312 patent”) relating to a jury verdict and the district court’s post-trial rulings. The ‘312 covered deep fryers having [...]
Schedule
an In-Person or
Telephone Appointment
-
Impact of US Supreme Court’s Prometheus Patentable Subject Matter Decision
May 18, 2012
-
Amendments or Arguments after Final Rejection may be Accepted under new USPTO Pilot Program
May 9, 2012
-
Digitization of Copyright entries Nearly Complete at US Library of Congress
May 2, 2012
- Sound Trademark Dispute: Ride the Ducks v. Bay Quackers August 26, 2009
- 274 green patents filed in second quarter August 27, 2009
- IBM Files US Patent for Facebook Remote Control September 1, 2009
Amazon
Appeal
Apple App Store
Blackberry
Blogs
Bose
CAFC
Common-Interest Agreement
Cox Cable
Cracking Wireless
Damages
Eastern District of Texas
Facebook
featured
Fraud
Freedom of Information Act
Global Economy
Google
Infringement
Ipad
Iphone
Jailbreaking
Japanese Tsunami Disaster
Kathy Bates
KSR v. Teleflex
Laches
Litigation
Louis Vuitton
Mattel
Negligence
Nintendo
NTP
playstation
Pravel
PS3
Recession
Redskins
Research in Motion
Research in Motion
Sony
The North Face
The South Butt
Tivo
Tyco
Wave
RECEIVE CURRENT IP UPDATES
Testimonials
"Jim is a fine lawyer very knowledgeable about the US Patent and Trademark Office and performing services of searching and evaluation of patents for infringement and validity."
Less Hewitt, Esq.








