Carstens, Allen & Gourley, LLP Recognized as Texas Super Lawyers of 2023
We are proud to announce Texas Super Lawyers has again recognized Carstens, Allen & Gourley, LLP in its 2023 annual award listing. This list of Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, is based on peer recognition and professional achievements. Of those nominated, no more than five percent of the total lawyers in the state are selected […]
Judge Albright: Regular and Established Place of Business of Hyundai at Authorized Dealers
Last week, Judge Alan Albright denied Hyundai’s motion to dismiss StratosAudio’s patent infringement claims for improper venue. Although Hyundai does not directly control any regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas, it does have authorized dealers there. Based on the contractual control exerted over those dealerships by Hyundai, Judge Albright […]
Clarifying the Distinction Between the “Inventive Concept” and “Patentability” Requirements When Determining Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
In the continuing wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempt in Alice v. CLS Bank to define what is eligible to be the subject matter of a patent, two recent decisions have been issued by the Federal Circuit that provide an important piece of the puzzle the Supreme Court left us with more than two […]
Who Carries the Burden in IPR—And, Does it Matter?
The Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceeding, part of the America Invents Act, sets up a streamlined procedure for any party (“petitioner”) to challenge the validity of the claims of an issued patent, not in a court, but in the US Patent Office, generally at a much lower cost when compared to federal court. An IPR […]
Delay Might Put Patent Ongoing Royalties and Injunctive Relief at Increased Risk
Plaintiffs in patent cases are entitled to damages stretching back six years from the date of filing the suit for patent infringement under the Patent Statute, 35 USC § 286 — unless these were barred by laches. This has been the law for over 20 years, since at least Aukerman,[1] which held that the defense […]
Akamai-Redux
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit – en banc, today held, “on the facts of this case, that liability under § 271(a) can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method […]
Akamai: Demise of Tort-Based Joint-Actor Infringement
The Federal Circuit on May 13, 2015 issued its long-awaited opinion in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the scope of “divided” or “joint-actor” direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a). Akamai had argued in favor of a broad “joint-tortfeasor” based definition of […]
