INTELLECTUALLY SPEAKING®

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...

We've Moved — and We're Celebrating (a little late). After a busy end-of-year move, we're excited to officially share that our office has a new home!   

In patent cases, § 285 fee motions now almost routinely feature a familiar defense playbook. After a non‑infringement or invalidity win, the prevailing accused infringer points to the patentee's early correspondence: emails and letters that propose a license or settlement at figures “well below t...

Ramey LLP is taking action to protect the intellectual property rights of its client, Flick Intelligence LLC. We have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LUCID SOFTWARE INC. in the District of Utah, Central Division. The Core of the Lawsuit: U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762 The legal action c...

Ramey LLP has filed a new patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of its client, RANDOM CHAT LLC, against KURU FOOTWEAR, INC. The case centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099, which covers technology related to a “Method for Carrying Out a Multimedia Communication Based on a Network Protocol, Particul...

On September 26, 2025, Ramey LLP filed a patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of AML IP, LLC against Fetch Rewards, Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison Division. The complaint includes a demand for a jury trial and seeks to address the unauthorized use of AML IP's patented technol...

Ramey LLP has filed a patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of its client, VDPP, LLC, against DYNAMIC DISPLAYS, INC. The suit was filed to protect VDPP's intellectual property rights related to advanced stereoscopic viewing systems. The Patents Under Dispute The legal action, filed on September...

On September 26, 2025, Ramey LLP filed a patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of VDPP, LLC against Innovative Video Technology, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York. The complaint includes a demand for a jury trial and seeks to protect VDPP's valuable intellectual property rights. The case ...

Ramey LLP is pleased to announce the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of its client, Yopima, LLC, against CURB MOBILITY, LLC. The Technology at the Center of the Case The lawsuit, filed on September 25, 2025, focuses on the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038. This paten...