All Posts

“. . .  You see, the mistake everyone makes is thinking AI is all about document generation. It is that. But it’s so much more . . . .”   Introduction   Three years can change everything.   Three years ago, a brash young data analyst from DOGE burst into your office and turned your 50-partner, 170-lawyer firm upside down. Armed with nothing but spreadsheets, a whiteboard marker, and an unsettling gift for mathematics, he introduced you to the hourly cost rate (“HCR”) and hour

Serving Chinese Patent Infringers After Spin Master and the Second Circuit’s Smart Study Decision I. The Discovery Every Patent Holder Dreads For a moment, place yourself in the position of Spin Master, Ltd., a Canadian toy company that spent over a decade developing, patenting, and marketing its Zero Gravity® toy cars; vehicles that, through a carefully engineered venturi duct exploiting Bernoulli's Principle, can drive up walls and race across ceilings. The technology earne

"Appellate courts rarely provide this kind of roadmap for arguments not before them." I. Introduction Can a patentee unknowingly create a patent license—and trigger marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287—simply by dismissing an infringement suit with prejudice? That was the ruling by the district court in Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc. , No. 3:23-CV-00791-N (N.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2023), which was left undisturbed by the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the di

“The appearance of a trial by peers is maintained. But the outcome is determined by ‘qualified’ experts.” The Jury Speaks in Vain The jury found infringement. After hearing testimony about web design patents, user interface objects, and the inner workings of Shopify’s e-commerce platform, the citizen jurors concluded that Shopify had infringed Express Mobile’s patents. They awarded $40 million in damages. The verdict didn’t survive. Shopify moved for judgment as a matter of l

“Google (and the court) used these letters for precisely what Rule 408 forbids: to prove that EscapeX’s infringement claims lacked merit.” Introduction On its face, EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC reads like a cautionary tale ripped from the patent litigation playbook. A non-practicing entity (“NPE” or pejoratively “patent troll”) you’ve never heard of sues a tech giant over a patent covering “artist-specified dynamic albums,” a function of YouTube.   The NPE ignores the defen

“ The rules say little about the scope of investigation but instead focus their efforts on defining ‘improper contact’—creating a system where anything goes so long as jurors never find out. ”   I. Introduction   In the high-stakes world of courtroom battles, where every detail can tip the scales, a seemingly routine step in trial preparation recently backfired spectacularly. On October 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick sanctioned a prestigious law firm $10,000

How a routine IPR institution turned into a procedural precedent for claim construction consistency   In the high-stakes world of patent litigation, accused infringers often pursue parallel strategies in district court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). But what happens when those strategies directly contradict each other? Revvo Technologies just found out the hard way.   On November 3, 2025, the USPTO Director took the extraordinary step of sua sponte (meani

“ In patent litigation, what you allege can and will be used against you. . . .”   I. INTRODUCTION   In patent litigation, the line between sufficient pleading and pleading yourself out of court can be razor thin. David’s Dozer V-Loc System Inc. and inventor David Armas (collectively, “plaintiffs”) learned this lesson the hard way when their detailed allegations—accepted as true—demonstrated that John Deere’s (“Deere”) products could not infringe their patent. On October 9,

“. . . The fraud case is prerequisite to the patent case . . . .”   I. INTRODUCTION   In mid-June 2025, attorneys for plaintiffs Janssen Products and PharmaMar were reviewing their opponent’s document production in a routine Hatch-Waxman patent case when they stumbled across something that shouldn't exist: their own clients' highly confidential regulatory filings . Not summaries. Not publicly available information. But instead, substantive portions of the proprietary specific

“The math is stark: infringement victory + validity win + $10 million jury award = $1, if you cannot apportion value to the patented...

“The Federal Circuit did not mince words about Phillips's litigation strategy, describing it as ‘sandbagging’ Magēmā with a...

“This brings us to Japan, where patent law has its own unique peculiarities—and where this particular battle just reached a crucial...

"But this isn’t really a story about dosing a drug in stages. It’s about when courts can empower patent challengers with the legal...

It thus appears that Goldstein holds the better hand in winning the pre-trial dismissal of the Section 7203 failure-to-pay misdemeanor...

. . . The new legal tech tools raise the level of both competition and sophistication  in the legal services market, which not only...

“. . . Every law firm is a snowflake—unique in its practice mix, client base, and culture—but all bow to the same unforgiving accounting...

. . . DOGE’s rapid implementation and the ensuing legal tumult reflect a bold reimagining of federal efficiency reforms, diverging from...

. . . If audits show misuse (e.g., inflated grants), forcing payments could violate the executive’s duty to execute laws faithfully . ....

. . . What remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court ultimately will rule that the confinement of that executive power to...

. . . this case presented the distinct question of whether a Board determination that certain claims are unpatentable can collaterally...