Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Paul Lienert: How Tesla Tapped a Tiny Canadian Lab for Battery Breakthroughs (Source: Reuters)
- Blake Brittain: Apple, Cisco Get $4.2 Million in Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Case (Source: Bloomberg Law)
- Atty. Melanie Szweras and Atty. Donald Bocchinfuso: The USPTO’s Fast-Track Patent Program Spurs On COVID-19 Innovations (Source: Mondaq)
- David Phelan: New Apple Watch Patent Reveals Super-Cool Future Upgrade (Source: Forbes)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Anthony Trippe: Companies Miss Out On Billions In Value, New Patent Marketplace Could Change That (Source: Forbes)
- Prof. Amy L. Landers: Intentional Waivers of Privilege and the Opinion of Counsel: Can the Scope of Disclosure be Managed (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Michael A. Carrier: Pay-for-Delay: Who Does the Generic Industry Lobby Represent? (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
Re: “Blake Brittain: Apple, Cisco Get $4.2 Million in Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Case (Source: Bloomberg Law)”
As I had asked earlier, is this a record high patent suit attorney fee sanction?* I assume this award will be appealed, but if sustained, will it get paid, and by whom? I.e., what if the patent owner is a cash-empty PAE? Will the attorneys at fault ever get hit with any part of this sanction?
*[Apparently sanctioned for the chutzpah in asserting a narrow [non-infringing] claim scope to win an IPR and then going back to asserting a broad infringing claim scope in the D.C. Something Scott’s PostGrant blog has repeatedly warned against.]
Why was WO2020060606 omitted from the Bits and Bytes¡!!!!!!!!!!
Who else fixin’a join a riot bros? MM? You fighting the patriarchy with someone yet bro?
6, I would posit that Malcolm is no longer with us.
I know right? I was wondering if he passed of covid or was now super oppressed. You hear?
Have not heard.
Anyone have any idea what is being looked at in the cares act extension into June for large entities?
Comments are closed.