Today, February 5, 2013, in Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 2012-1308, the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Plager, and O’Malley) found that an Article III case or controversy over indirect infringement liability existed between two competitors in the automobile refrigerant market.  This case provides incremental insight into the circumstances under which a

  • nike already shoe comparisonLast week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike (No. 11-982).  The Court held that Nike’s issuance of a broad covenant not to sue on one of its trademarks extinguished Already’s standing to its counterclaim for invalidity of Nike’s trademark.  While this case involved trademarks, not patents,

Today, Thu., June 7, 2012, in In re Bill of Lading, No. 2010-1493, the Federal Circuit (Newman (dissent), Prost and O’Malley) ruled that complaints were properly dismissed for not pleading contributory infringement, but they sufficiently pled induced infringement.  This case provides important guidance in pleading patent infringement, which is often a concern in multiple defendant cases.Continue Reading Patent Alert: Federal Circuit clarifies how to plead direct and indirect infringement (In re Bill of Lading)