The U.S. Supreme Court Monday decided in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can continue to use a claim construction standard to review patents in America Invents Act reviews that is different from the one used in district court.

Law360 quotes William O’Brien on why the decision is significant. “The Supreme Court followed its precedents on agency deference, but the result is to permit inconsistencies in claim constructions that would never be tolerated if infringement and validity were both being determined in court. By petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an accused infringer gains a broader playing field for contesting validity, because the board will compare the prior art to the ‘broadest reasonable construction’ of the patent claims it reviews. If the claims nonetheless survive, the case returns to court, where the accused infringer can invoke different claim construction rules and play infringement defense on a narrower field.”

Read full article. 

While (IPR) petitions are on the increase, Nate Dilger and John Lord provide an analysis of the overall effectiveness of IPR Proceedings and benefits of investing early in the process. “IPR proceedings have achieved their stated goal of providing an effective and efficient way to challenge a patent’s validity.” Nate Dilger explains.  John Lord also explains, “Patent owners thus must fight early and hard to prevent IPR institution, if possible, or at least to narrow the issues for which trial is instituted.”  Nate Dilger and John Lord are registered patent attorneys and partners at One LLP. Mr. Dilger’s practice focuses on litigating patent disputes, including representation of patent challengers and owners in PTAB inter partes review proceedings. Mr. Lord’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, including representation of companies in post-grant PTAB proceedings.

Read full article.

One LLP is excited to announce that founding partner Peter Afrasiabi’s new book, Burning Bridges: America’s 20-Year Crusade to Deport Labor Leader Harry Bridges, releases this week.

With a Foreword by Erwin Chemerinsky, the book is the true story of America’s longest and most bitter deportation battle.

Set during the Cold War and the Red Scare, and based on previously secret FBI FOIA and National Archive documents, the book charts the legal and political intrigue of the four serial trials against San Francisco labor leader Harry Bridges. It assesses the prosecutors and FBI investigators, the judges and courts, and the larger-than-life defense lawyers who risked prison and disbarment in their efforts to save Harry Bridges.

“Utterly enjoyable … excellent and crisp… The story is gripping, at times gritty, and readers will love to follow Bridges as he fights for justice and a cause he believes in,”  San Francisco Book Review.

 

Press Contact
Tania Alvarez
(949) 502-2870 ext: 1032 | talvarez@onellp.com

Chris Arledge, managing partner of One LLP, published a feature article in California Lawyer titled Litigators v. Trial Lawyers: The Differences and Why They Matter. The article discusses the difference between litigators and trial lawyers, and how the skills required of a bona fide trial lawyer differ profoundly from those required of a pre-trail litigator.

In the article, Arledge explains why most pre-trial litigators struggle at trial and how many lawyers aggressively avoid trials. He also demonstrates what can be done to improve the skill set of trial lawyers and what law firms should do to best serve their clients.

According to Arledge, “most litigators are not trial lawyers.  Most will never be, either because they do not devote the time required to develop the skills, or because they cannot develop the skills, or both.  But this fact has consequences—or should have—for how we practice.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Chris Arledge is a co-founder and managing partner of One LLP, an intellectual property firm with offices in Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, and San Diego.  His biography can be found here.