Lewis R Clayton

March 12, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone discuss 'BTG Int'l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharm.', in which the Federal Circuit may decide whether §315(e)(2) acts to bar a successful IPR petitioner from asserting in district court the arguments on which it prevailed before the PTAB.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

9 minute read

January 08, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone write: This term, the Supreme Court in 'Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology' is set to resolve a circuit split over whether a trademark licensee may continue to use licensed marks where the licensor, as a debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy proceeding, rejects the license agreement. They discuss the case and the decisions in other circuits.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

9 minute read

November 13, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone address the question of how, if at all, a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may then demonstrate Article III standing to appeal to the federal courts from the PTAB's decision upholding the patent's validity. The authors report on two pending appeals—one at the Supreme Court and one at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—that may soon answer this question.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

9 minute read

September 11, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In their column on Intellectual Property Litigation, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on the interpretation and application of the copyright misuse doctrine in three cases decided this year.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

9 minute read

July 10, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Some patents define the boundaries of their inventions using qualitative terms of degree, rather than quantitative measures. Patents must, however, reasonably inform skilled readers about what is within and what is outside the scope of their claims, and terms of degree can be subjective.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

2 minute read

May 08, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In 'Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple', the U.S. Supreme Court held that an award of a design-patent infringer's total profit on an infringing article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. §289 need not be calculated based on the end product sold to the consumer, but may instead be calculated based on only a component of that product. The court, however, did not adopt a test to determine the relevant article of manufacture. Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on subsequent district court decisions that have begun to establish a test for determining the relevant article of manufacture.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

9 minute read

March 13, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on the post-'Cray' landscape and provide guidance for practitioners.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

8 minute read

January 10, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone write: While we wait for a decision in 'Exmark', some principles are clear from the briefing and from oral argument.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

8 minute read

November 07, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone write: In 'Star Athletica', the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a two-part test for determining whether the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection. They report here on the subsequent cases applying this test.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

8 minute read

September 14, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on the "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Merus" case and other cases addressing whether litigation misconduct (as opposed to misconduct during prosecution) can render a patent unenforceable, and they provide guidance for practitioners.

By By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

7 minute read