Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2022, VOLUME 47, EDITION 2
Content
- 2022 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Becoming More Like California? a Potential National Movement Towards Restricting the Use of Non-competes
- Copyright Commons
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2021-2022
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2021-2022
- Intellectual Property Section New Matter Editorial Board
- Larry G. Junker V. Medical Components, and Martech Medical Products, Inc.
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor-in-chief
- My Ai Did It: Intermediary Liability For Ai?
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- Russia Permits Uncompensated Use of Certain Patents and Future of Russian Patents
- Table of Contents
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN UNICOLORS, INC. V. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P. ELIMINATES A TRAP FOR UNWARY COPYRIGHT APPLICANTS
- Trade Secret Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- What's Happening In Russia—Should Ip Rightsholders Be Concerned?
- Federal Circuit Column
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COLUMN
Connor Houghton
Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
This article discusses the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in DBN Holding, Inc v. International Trade Commission.1 In this precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit held that a subsequent finding of patent invalidity did not provide a basis for rescinding or modifying the International Trade Commission’s imposition of over $6 million in civil penalties for a manufacturer’s violation of a Commission consent order.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case has an extensive procedural history, including three prior appeals to the Federal Circuit.