Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Reinstates $82M Jury Award and Revisits Trade Secret Damages
In Versata v. Ford, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated an $82.26 million jury award for Versata Software LLC against Ford Motor Company on May 22, 2026. The award had previously been reduced in a 2023 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which lowered the breach of contract award from $82.3 million to a nominal $3 and cut a $22.4 million trade secret misappropriation award to $0.
Balancing Interests: Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Rejects Bright Line Rules for Permanent Injunctions
A patent permanent injunction does not automatically follow a finding of infringement—even a willful one carrying a verdict worth hundreds of millions of dollars. On May 18, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas addressed a Motion for Permanent Injunction by Collision Communications, Inc (“Collision”) seeking to enjoin Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) from infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,593,492 (the “’492 Patent”).
Sued for Patent Infringement: What to Do First
A defendant served with a patent infringement complaint typically has 21 days to respond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), and the choice of forum, defenses, and timing is governed by the interaction of Rule 12, the patent venue statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the local patent rules of the chosen district, and the one-year IPR clock under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Each path forecloses some defenses and preserves others; the first-month decisions are strategic, not procedural, and they shape the next two years of the litigation.
Continue reading…
Skinny Label Patent Infringement: How Hikma v. Amarin Could Reshape Generic Drug Law
The Supreme Court is poised to decide one of the most consequential questions in pharmaceutical patent law: when does a generic drug’s marketing create skinny label patent infringement liability? Continue reading…
What Is a Markman Hearing? Claim Construction Explained
A Markman hearing is a federal pretrial proceeding at which the district judge construes the disputed terms of a patent’s claims as a matter of law. The name comes from Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (unanimous; claim construction is a question of law allocated to the judge), in which the Supreme Court held that claim construction is “exclusively within the province of the court.” Id. at 388–89. The judge’s constructions govern summary judgment and bind the jury’s infringement analysis at trial. Appellate review runs under Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015): de novo on the ultimate legal construction, clear-error on subsidiary fact-findings.
Continue reading…