This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Intellectual Property,
Civil Litigation

Mar. 18, 2020

2019 patent litigation year in review

Last year struck many as a quiet year in patent law.

Richard S.J. Hung

Partner
Morrison & Foerster LLP

Email: rhung@mofo.com

Richard is co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's IP Litigation Practice and cross-disciplinary Intellectual Property Group. Mr. Hung is an IP trial lawyer, representing clients in high-stakes and complex patent litigation proceedings before U.S. district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Bita Rahebi

Partner
Morrison & Foerster LLP

Email: brahebi@mofo.com

UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CA

Bit is co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's Intellectual Property Litigation Group and cross-disciplinary Intellectual Property Group. Ms. Rahebi practices from the firm's Los Angeles office and litigates before state and federal trial courts, the Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission on a wide range of matters involving semiconductors, software, consumer electronics, and medical devices.

R. Benjamin Nelson

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Email: rbnelson@mofo.com

R. Benjamin Nelson is an associate at Morrison & Foerster LLP. A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Nelson focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and the defense of consumer class actions.

[THIS COLUMN APPEARED IN THE 2020 TOP IP LAWYER SUPPLEMENT]

Last year struck many as a quiet year in patent law, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issuing no en banc decisions and the U.S. Supreme Court declining to further clarify subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.

But there were still important decisions to be had. The Supreme Court addressed the ramifications of a confidential sale ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up