In the case of CAI v CAJ [2021] SGHC 21, the Singapore High Court took the rare step of partially setting aside an ICC arbitral award on the grounds that there had been a breach of natural justice, and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. . . .
On February 10, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the district court’s decision finding the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,894,811, 7,489,423, 8,040,574, and 8,294,915 invalid as indefinite.
The COVID-19 pandemic has required the international arbitration community to embrace the use of remote / virtual hearings as an alternative to indefinite adjournments. This installment of our continuing series announces the publication of our comprehensive analysis of the tribunal’s authority to order remote hearings under the UNCITRAL Model Law.
IPRs can be instituted "only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” A recurring issue, however, is the effect of statements made by the patentee in the specification of the challenged patent . . .
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed two questions concerning international commercial arbitration: (1) whether private international commercial arbitrations are proceedings for which § 1782 may be invoked and, if not, (2) whether CIETAC arbitration is a private arbitration, and therefore outside the scope of 28 U.S.C § 1782. The Court confirmed its precedent holding §1782 cannot be invoked in private international commercial arbitrations, and concluded that CIETAC arbitration is a private arbitration, thereby foreclosing relief under § 1782.
There has been a lot of commentary concerning the Supreme Court's decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v Outokumpu Stainless USA, most of which appears to be focused on the Supreme Court's holding that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New...
The COVID-19 pandemic has required the international arbitration community to consider the use of virtual hearings as an alternative to indefinite adjournments. As the first installment of our continuing series on the subject, we have identified what we believe are currently the best webinars to assist in taking the initial dip into the virtual pool.
On May 8, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion ( ) affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) that all pending claims in U.S. Patent Appl'n Ser. No. 12/523,427 (“the ‘427 application”) were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circu...
The Law Offices of Marc R. Labgold, P.C. is a District of Columbia Professional Corporation. Our practice is limited to: International Arbitration, United States Patent Law, and practice before United States Federal Courts, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).