Read about GE’s request for a new trial with Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, which argued the jury made an "irreconcilably inconsistent" finding regarding GE's technology that infringes a Siemens patent for offshore wind turbines.

Read about a permanent injunction barring General Electric Co. from selling Haliade-X wind turbines that a jury found infringed a Siemens patent, except for turbines ordered by developers of ongoing projects.

Read about a motion filed by the state of New Jersey urging a federal judge in Massachusetts not to block General Electric–made wind turbines that a jury found to infringe a Siemens patent and an acid neutralization technology patent filed by Montauk Renewables.

Read about the USPTO’s commitment to becoming a technology partner to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s WIPO GREEN sustainability wing and its other initiatives to address climate change, plus recent IP litigation and patent developments.

Patent owners can recover lost profits when (1) there is a demand for a patented product, (2) an absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives, (3) the patentee had the manufacturing and marketing capacity to exploit demand for the product, and (4) the patentee can establish the amount of profit it should have made but-for the accused product. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reciting the Panduit factors). An implicit threshold requirement of this legal framework is actually being the entity that earns profits on the patented product.

The power of Rule 11 – as with any weapon – must be employed diligently and with good judgment, as recently reiterated by the Northern District of Ohio.

The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in the closely observed case American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., v. Neapco Holdings LLC. The Court’s refusal to hear the case disappointed patent practitioners nationwide—and likely also members of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which itself has been clamoring for guidance.

While litigants may oft use Rule 11 prematurely or inappropriately, it does have its proper time and place when deployed as intended. In the patent context, examples include when claim elements are clearly missing in an accused product but a patent owner refuses to withdraw infringement allegations or, conversely, when a defendant continues to contest infringement when all claim limitations are clearly present in the accused product. Rule 11 grounds also arise in different contexts, as in the recent case of Imprenta Services, Inc.v. Karll.