Thought Leadership | Fish & Richardson

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Pro Bono & Social Responsibility

Legal Operations

Legal Project Management

Knowledge Management

Legal Technology Services

Patent Litigation

Trademark, Copyright & Media Litigation

Trade Secret Litigation

Standard Essential Patents

Chancery & Corporate Governance

<p><em>Inter Partes </em>Review</p>

Post-Grant Review

<p><em>Ex Parte</em> Reexamination</p>

Supplemental Examination

Patent Prosecution

Strategic Patent Counseling & Opinions

Patent Portfolio Management

Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court

IP Licensing, Transactions & Agreements

Trademark & Copyright Counseling & Prosecution

Strategic Counseling, Registration & Opinions

Advertising & Marketing

Domain Names & Internet

TTAB Oppositions & Cancellations

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Transactions & Agreements

Regulatory & Government Affairs

Communications & Spectrum Regulation

Drug & Medical Device Regulation

mHealth & Telemedicine

Privacy & Data Security

Electrical & Computer Technology

Software & Internet

Consumer Electronics

Artificial Intelligence

Digital Media & E-Commerce

Financial, Business & FinTech Services

Telecommunications

Energy & Chemicals

Biotech & Diagnostics

Medical Devices

Pharmaceuticals

Academic Research & Medical Centers

Transportation, Aerospace & Defense

Autonomous Vehicles

Thought Leadership

IP Law Essentials

Post-Grant Annual Reports

Blog | December 01, 2010

Detailed opinion on ongoing royalties from Arizona court

Blog | December 01, 2010

Judge Rader allows public access to trial testimony because of "increased interest" in patent damages methodologies

Blog | November 03, 2010

Lost Profits damages ruled too speculative on JMOL

Blog | November 03, 2010

Bard Peripheral Vasc, et al. v. WL Gore Associates, et al.

Blog | October 29, 2010

San Diego Court Awards Post-Judgment (Ongoing) Royalties and Supplemental Damages

Blog | October 25, 2010

Utah court: refuses to apply entire market value rule to lump-sum damages; finds no marking violation where unmarked products were not within scope of license

Blog | October 24, 2010

Pennsylvania court holds pre-licensing correspondence is relevant to damages and must be produced

Blog | October 24, 2010

Inventor can testify as to factual basis for damages -- District of Utah

Blog | October 07, 2010

Court instructs: If reasonably feasible, mark your product (and not just the packaging) with patent numbers -- otherwise, marking will be inadequate

Blog | October 05, 2010

Patent Damages Handbook

Blog | October 01, 2010

Client Alert: Why a Compilation Copyright Registration May Not Be Enough to Protect Your Rights

Blog | August 31, 2010

See the recent article on Legislative patent damages reform published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal