In The Press:
IP Law 360 Turns To Partner Ken George For Insight In Kimberly Clark’s Diaper Row

On appeal, Kimberly-Clark argued that the district court mistakenly relied on the printed-matter doctrine in finding the ‘119 patent was anticipated, and said that the obviousness analysis for the ‘067 patent was “fundamentally flawed.” As for the ‘221 noninfringement judgment, Kimberly-Clark contended the lower court misconstrued its claims. First Quality, on the other hand, argued […]

ARE Copyright Law Alert: Supreme Court Limit Laches For Copyright Claims

On May 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that while laches cannot be invoked to bar a plaintiff’s claim for damages brought within Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations, there may be “extraordinary circumstances” where laches may limit equitable relief. In holding so, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court […]

In The Press:
5 ARE Attorneys Named Super Lawyers Again

Thomson Reuter’s has named five (5) attorneys from Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP Super Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law for its 2014 New York Metro area edition, including partners Daniel Ebenstein, Anthony F. Lo Cicero, Charles R. Macedo and Neil Zipkin, as well as senior counsel Richard Mandaro. The firm is pleased to see its […]

In The Press:
IP Law 360 Reviews Patent Impact Of “Raging Bull”

Law360, New York (September 24, 2014, 7:18 PM ET) — A Federal Circuit panel declined last week to address whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s "Raging Bull" decision limiting laches as a defense in copyright cases applies equally to patent cases, but attorneys say the court now has an ideal opportunity to grapple with the issue […]

ARE Patent Law Alert: Supreme Court Reverses Akamai On Inducement But Leaves Open The Question Of Divided, Direct Infringement

(June 2, 2014)  The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., 572 U.S. __ (June 2, 2014) (“Limelight”). reversing and remanding the leading Federal Circuit case on induced infringement under 35 USC § 271(b).  Under the Federal Circuit’s analysis, in order to establish direct infringement […]