Header graphic for print
LimeGreenIP News

Joe Raffetto

Posts by Joe Raffetto

U.S. + Germany Patent Update – July 2018

The U.S. and Germany are two of the most key fora in the world for patent litigation. The U.S. has long been one of the largest markets for patent litigation, and Germany has constantly attracted more than 50% of all European patent litigation. Hogan Lovells offers its multi-lingual update, dated July 2018, on notable recent

Hogan Lovells Standard Essential Patent Update – June 2018

In the June 2018 edition of Hogan Lovells’ Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Update, we report on recent news and case decisions from China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This bi-monthly newsletter summarizes the more notable SEP developments from key litigation arenas for owners and prospective licensees. Spotlight This issue’s Spotlight article addresses the dismissal

Standard essential patents in the automotive industry – Webinar recording

Earlier this month we held the third in our LimeGreen Live webinar series, in conjunction with Hogan Lovells Automotive and Mobility Industry Sector Group This webinar explored recent SEP case developments in three key jurisdictions—the U.S., Germany, and China. The speakers were three members of our global patent team handling automotive patent litigation and SEP disputes: Katie Feng (China), Joe Raffetto

Standard essential patents in the automotive industry – LimeGreen Live webinar 21/26 June

Join us on 21 or 26 June for the third in our LimeGreen Live webinar series, in conjunction with Hogan Lovells Automotive and Mobility Industry Sector Group This webinar will explore recent SEP case developments in three key jurisdictions—the U.S., Germany, and China. The presenters include three members of our global patent team handling automotive patent litigation and SEP disputes:

Introducing the U.S. + Germany Patent Update

The prominent state of patent litigation in the United States and Germany is explained not only by the size of its markets, but also by a recent increase of hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With an aim at providing coverage for these critical jurisdictions, we are

US – Patent IPRs: Sovereign immunity defence heading on up?

In this post, we discuss the sovereign immunity defence for IPRs which has garnered much attention, with the final chapter likely ending up at SCOTUS. The article was first published in Intellectual Property Magazine, April 2018. Summary So how does the sovereign immunity saga end? The PTAB and Congress have already made their scepticism of tribal

US: PTAB – What’s in store for the rest of the year?

In this post we examine how Section 101, IPRs and sovereign immunity defences are set to shape the board’s procedures and strategies over the coming months. The article was first published in Intellectual Property Magazine, March 2018. Before projecting the future, it is important to reflect on the past. The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

PTAB: Tribal Sovereign Immunity Does Not Provide a Basis to Terminate IPRs

On February 23, 2018, in a much-anticipated decision, the PTAB ruled that tribal sovereign immunity could not be used to shield certain Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) patents from review in a number of IPRs. Allergan had assigned its patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (the “Tribe”) on September 8, 2017, one week before hearing in

ITC Section 337: Monthly highlights

We’re delighted to introduce our ITC Section 337 series. The series provides updates on recent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 investigations as well as other timely ITC developments that affect your business. What’s ITC and how can it affect my business? ITC Investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”) are initiated by companies

US: Time to simplify patent challenges (perspective)

The America Invents Act (AIA) became law roughly five years ago, and with its implementation came new administrative proceedings by which companies may challenge the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Rather than establishing a single uniform procedure that permits challenges to any patent based on any statutory ground, however, Congress

As auto & technology IP converge, will Detroit & Silicon Valley unite?

As technology steers the automotive industry and Silicon Valley onto the same track, big players find themselves at a crossroads – are they on the cusp of the next IP battleground or at the forefront of a new kind of collaboration? Technology and automotive company reps at the “IP in the Auto Industry” conference in

USPTO issues new rules for post-grant proceedings effective May 2

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued amendments to its “Rules of Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” for IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings, which will be effective in all current and future proceedings starting on May 2, 2016. Most notably, these amendments allow a patent owner to submit testimonial

US: District Court Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel by Specifying When Prior Art “Reasonably Could Have Been Raised” in an IPR

One key trade-off for petitioners challenging the validity of a patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) is being estopped from making a parallel challenge in district court. If the PTO issues a final written decision in an inter partes review (“IPR”), the petitioner is estopped from later urging in court that a

US – Supreme Court to review PTAB claim construction standard

On January 15, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has been using the correct standard to construe patent claims in post-grant proceedings. The PTAB construes claims according to their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (“BRI”). By contrast, the claim construction standard applied by district courts follows Federal

USPTO Considering New Rules for Post-Grant Proceedings

On August 20, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) published proposed amendments to the “Rules of Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” for IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings. The proposed rule changes include: adopting the claim construction standard used in district courts and set forth in Phillips v. AWH

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms That Certain Computer-Implemented Abstract Ideas Are Ineligible For Patent Protection

(U.S. Supreme Court, Decision of 19 June 2014, No. 13-298, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l) The U.S. Supreme Court held that (1) patent claims directed to the abstract idea of mitigating “settlement risk” were not patentable where they merely required generic computer implementation, and (2) the recitation of generic computer components in

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Federal Circuit’s Standard for Inducement of Patent Infringement

(U.S. Supreme Court, Decision of 2 June 2014, No. 12-786, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.) Rejecting the Federal Circuit’s fractured en banc decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no direct infringement has occurred under § 271(a). Akamai