Posts Tagged: "litigation"

Reddit filed a lawsuit yesterday against artificial intelligence (AI) company Perplexity AI and three other defendants for their alleged illegal circumvention of Reddit security measures meant to protect misuse of its content and data. Reddit, which describes itself in the complaint as “one of the largest repositories of human conversation in existence,” likened the actions of Oxylabs UAB, AWMProxy, and SerpApi to those of “would-be bank robbers.” Through their development of tools that bypass both Google’s and Reddit’s anti-scraping measures, and their scraping of Reddit content from Google search results, these defendants, “knowing they cannot get into the bank vault, break into the armored truck carrying the cash instead,” said the complaint.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I explored the complex, fascinating and scandalous world of counterfeits, dupes and fakes with my guest, Gina Johnson, Chief Legal Officer of Ridge Wallet. Johnson shared her experiences and insights into fighting the never-ending onslaught of copycats and nefarious actors. Sadly, a successful company with a desirable product and brand must constantly remain vigilant to exclusively sell its products online, even when it has intellectual property that should offer protection against such flagrant violations.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we dive into patent eligibility waters, with a discussion on how patent attorneys and litigators alike can cope with Alice. Our conversation will triangulate patent eligibility from the political perspective, from the perspective of a patent litigator who represents patent owners in federal court, and from the perspective of a patent attorney who represents clients as they attempt to obtain software patents. Joining us this week is the Honorable Andrei Iancu, former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Vince Rubino, who is a patent litigator with Fabricant in the firm’s New York City office, and from the patent prosecution perspective we have John Rogitz, who is Managing Attorney at Rogitz & Associates.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we enter the world of patent monetization and patent dealmaking. As you hear the conversation unfold, we discuss the reality that patent deals are getting done. Although the value of the patent deals currently being consummated has not increased in 2025 compared with the last several years, the number of patent deals being done has dramatically increased, which could be the first sign of a bounce in the patent marketplace on the horizon.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we enter the patent litigation world for a conversation about gaming patent litigation. For too long, popular sentiment has been that patent owners are bad actors simply because they are patent owners. A more nuanced but still grossly overbroad view is that patent owners are not per se bad actors, but if you are a patent owner who has the audacity to enforce a patent against an alleged infringer then you are most definitely a bad actor. Obviously, just being a patent owner does not make one a bad actor, and neither does enforcing a patent against an alleged infringer. But this patent troll narrative has been quite successful

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has quickly become an important forum for pharmaceutical and biotech patent disputes in Europe. In 2024 and early 2025, a consistent theme has been the interplay between UPC proceedings and existing venues like European Patent Office (EPO) oppositions and national courts. Innovators and generic or biosimilar companies are now coordinating multi-front strategies engaging the UPC for pan-European relief while leveraging EPO opposition and selecting national litigations.

Over the past few years, Brazil has started to gain traction as a forum for standard essential patent (SEP) litigation—and a big reason for that is how preliminary injunctions (PIs) work here. But long before SEPs were trending, injunctions have always played a central role in Brazilian IP enforcement. Let’s explore why injunctions are so common—and powerful—in Brazil, especially when compared to other countries.

On April 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision largely upheld damages awarded to ams-OSRAM USA Inc. (formerly Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, or TAOS) in a long-running trade secret and contract dispute against Renesas Electronics America Inc. (formerly Intersil). The court affirmed tens of millions of dollars in disgorgement, exemplary damages, and reasonable royalties—but remanded for a narrow correction to the prejudgment interest calculation.

Cookie banners—those things that most users almost immediately close when they visit a site—have become a ubiquitous part of internet browsing. In theory, cookie banners should benefit all parties involved—site users and site operators alike. For users, a cookie banner should provide immediate access to information about the types of information the site is collecting and an ability to, at least in part, control that collection. For site operators, cookie banners should help with compliance and—potentially—provide defenses in any subsequent litigation.  

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we present my fireside chat with Judge John Holcomb of the United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California, which took place March 4, 2025, at IPWatchdog LIVE. We began our conversation with the story about how John Holcomb the patent litigator went from private practice to becoming Judge John Holcomb of the U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California. And then we pivot to discussing patent litigation, the makeup of the Central District of California, advice for litigators, experts, the new Rule 702 and Daubert hearings, the role of the jury and how Judge Holcomb divides time for trial, as well as the number of patents and claims best suited for a single trial. As our conversation wound down, we ended on the topic of his judicial philosophy, where he tells the story of three umpires.

Slogans play a crucial role in branding, serving as memorable and important expressions of a company’s identity. In Brazil, slogans are eligible for trademark registration, but their acceptance has historically been limited by strict requirements for distinctiveness and functionality. With the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) recently updating its interpretation of the law, the landscape for protecting slogans is evolving, offering new opportunities for brand owners.

In recent years, intellectual property (IP) claims have been on the rise—patent disputes, infringement claims, unlicensed use of social media content—all often lead to expensive IP litigation. While most businesses are familiar with and purchase Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, there is an often-overlooked section that can be a powerful tool for protection in IP-related claims called “Coverage B.” Coverage B, or “Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage,” offers critical coverage that may provide defense (and indemnity) against lawsuits alleging disparagement, defamation, and similar claims that often accompany intellectual property disputes.

Last week, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York issued a report and recommendation  supporting the entry of default judgment and a permanent injunction against 85 corporate and individual defendants sued by U.S. medical device company Abbott Laboratories. While the report recommended denial of Abbott’s motion for prejudgment interest, the magistrate judge found that enhanced damages totaling more than $54 million should be awarded to Abbott for loss of goodwill following the defendants’ unauthorized sale of international versions of Abbott’s FreeStyle Diabetes test strips into the United States.

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday that it should dismiss Judge Pauline Newman’s remaining challenges to the Council’s decision to suspend Newman indefinitely from the court because all of Newman’s claims “fail as a matter of law.” Most recently, on February 12, the District of Columbia court denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Judge Newman. Despite acknowledging that all of the recent complaints against Newman’s mental fitness continue to be unsubstantiated, the D.C. district court determined that most of Judge Newman’s requested relief was foreclosed by legal precedent limiting constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) Act. However, the court said it maintains jurisdiction over three of the 11 counts, and part of another, brought by Newman.