INTELLECTUALLY SPEAKING®

The Federal Circuit's decision in VDPP v. Volkswagen needs Supreme Court review.

The Federal Circuit's decision in VDPP v. Volkswagen further weakens patent rights for both operating companies and non-practicing entities.

The Federal Circuit's decision in VDPP versus Volkswagen affects more than non-practicing entities.

A response to Coke Morgan Stewart, Bad Patents, Patent Trolls, and the PR Campaign Created to Excuse Infringement, IPWatchdog (Oct. 12, 2026). Coke Stewart is right and the next piece Big Tech is after is litigation financing.

Attached is a letter of comment to the rules committee in opposition to an amendment of initial disclosures that would automatically require disclosure of litigation funding, the courts already have mechanisms where they can get this information if needed.

Ninety years ago, the Supreme Court held that a patentee who has never made or sold a patented article owes the public no marking and forfeits no damages for the want of it. Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936). On August 19, 2026, the Federal Circuit decided VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2024-2226, 2026 WL 2416565 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2026), a precedential opinion holding that a non-practicing patentee seeking pre-suit damages cannot plead around known licensees with the bare assertion that it has no products of its own to mark. The proposed pleading had to allege facts showing compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), including compliance by licensees. Id. at *2–3.....

Section 101 and PERA were never about patent trolls. It's about innovation.

Anaqua's acquisition of Unified Patents should be a wake-up call to patent owners.

Finally, Congress signals it might move PERA, but it might already be too late this term.

Big Tech’s playbook is to outlast you….

“The Federal Circuit took a step towards limiting the use of ‘nuisance value” in mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida”

Credo Semiconductor Strengthens Patent Portfolio with Innovation We are pleased to announce that Credo Semiconductor has been granted US Patent No. 12620994, titled "Fast Calibration of Phase Lock Loops." The patent was issued on May 5, 2026, marking another significant milestone in Credo's comm...

NPEs Have No Obligation to Patent Mark Ramey LLP is a Texas-based intellectual property law firm dedicated to representing small patent owners, startups, and independent inventors in disputes against larger corporations. William P. Ramey III www.rameyfirm.com   By William P. Ramey, III, ...

Patent litigation may unfold in courtrooms and conference rooms instead of battlefields, but the lessons of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War remain surprisingly relevant. His insights on strategy, preparation, and psychology map perfectly onto the high-stakes world of intellectual property disputes......

Patent enforcement is a specialized field that operates by rules most inventors never learn until they have already broken them. By the time a small inventor discovers infringement and decides to act, the most consequential decisions about the case have often already been made, usually by acciden...

“The Federal Circuit’s Opinion in mCom IP, LLC v. City Nat’l Bank of Fla. Provides useful guidance on § 285.”

The United States patent system is at an inflection point. For over a decade, patent eligibility doctrine under 35 U.S.C. §101 has drifted into uncertainty, producing inconsistent judicial outcomes and eroding the reliability of patent rights in critical areas of innovation. The Patent Eligibilit...

“Ortiz v. Vizio does not alter Wine Railway’s core holding that a non-practicing entity does not need to patent mark.”

“The proposed amendments to disclosures would severely burden patent plaintiffs and provide a playbook for deep pocket Big Tech in patent infringement litigation.”

The existence of a patent settlement license cannot mean there is a patent marking requirement without more. It is the intention of the parties to the settlement license as expressed through the terms of the settlement license that control. But Ortiz v. Vizio also underscores that an NPE must aff...

Have a read if you are concerned about the increasingly narrow public narrative surrounding patent enforcement and its impact on innovation. #LegalLift    LINK TO ARTICLE 

Courts should stop using the term “nuisance value” in patent cases.  If courts are serious about preserving petitioning rights, encouraging settlement, and keeping § 285 tethered to law rather than intuition, they should retire the term “nuisance value” entirely. The only coherent line is the sham‑litigation line....

This article explores the Supreme Court's requirement that a case must be both objectively baseless and subjectively baseless before a court may consider the content of a settlement offer in supporting any further sanction or award......

The Supreme Court limits the use of settlement communications to establish a sham litigation to cases where both objective and subjective bad faith is found.  This article explores why the same requirement of both objective and subjective bad faith is necessary before a settlement demand can be u...

"AI adoption in law should follow the same discipline lawyers apply to any significant change in practice," said William Ramey of Ramey LLP. "It should begin with understanding and proceed deliberately. LegalLift's approach reflects that principle."   CLICK TO RE...