News & Analysis

In a conversation with Law.com's Scott Graham, Kayvan Noroozi discussed the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Dex-Media v. Click-to-Call Technologies.

In an interview with Law360.com, Kayvan Noroozi discussed the current landscape of estoppel and serial petitions in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB.

In an interview with Bloomberg Law, Kayvan Noroozi commented on the creation and impact of the PTAB's Precedential Opinions Panel.

In an interview with Bloomberg Law, Kayvan Noroozi discussed the impact of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's recent precedential decisions in Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods. and NHK Spring v. Intri-Plix.

In an interview with Law360.com, Kayvan Noroozi discussed the Federal Circuit's watershed decision in RPX v. AIT, and its potential impact on inter partes review proceedings going forward. Read more at Law360.com.

On June 4, 2018, legal news site Law360.com published an analysis of the DOJ’s recent policy shift as to the application of antitrust scrutiny to owners of declared standard-essential patents subject to FRAND commitments.

In a piece published in Law360, I explore the arguments and merits at play in Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether inter partes review is unconstitutional under the "public rights" exception to Article III.

In a piece published in Investor's Business Daily, I give a personal perspective on the iPhone, the drivers of its success, and why Apple's battle with Qualcomm signals a troubling shift for the company and Apple’s costumers.

Richard Epstein and I have published an updated version of our article discussing the FRAND bargain, and why systematic misunderstandings and biases driving American courts' application of FRAND presents notable dangers that extend far beyond the realm of licensing standard-essential patents.

I was honored to speak at an event hosted by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in conjunction with Global Competition Review, regarding the intersection of antitrust and IP law. My esteemed co-panelists, including Mark Lemley, provided a variety of insights as to the role that antitrust should play in setting IP policy. 

My analysis of the merits of the pending issues in the Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell case was published on Seeking Alpha, here. My earlier analysis of the case, discussing its potential impact on $MRVL shares, can be read below as well as here on Seeking Alpha.

On August 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., et al., deciding key issues in a multi-billion dollar patent litigation matter.

For decades, Abercrombie & Fitch built a multi-billion dollar clothing business through advertisements showcasing practically nude men and women—a remarkable feat of irony. That success demonstrated that Abercrombie’s true product has been a particular lifestyle image. As Abercrombie’s founder, Mike Jeffries, admitted in 2006, that image rested on exclusion.

In Horne v. Dep't of Agriculture, the Supreme Court recently held that the Department of Agriculture's confiscation of significant percentages of raisin growers' crops, without compensation, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision has been hailed as a victory for property rights and a rebuke to governmental overreach.

It would appear axiomatic that a change in the applicable standard of review should make a significant and systematic impact on reversal rates. Empirical evidence validates that hypothesis as a whole: after the Federal Circuit held in 1998 that it would review district court claim constructions in patent cases entirely de novo,[1] the Federal Circuit's reversal rate on claim construction shot from roughly 20% to over 40%.[2]