Skip to content

Insights Search

46 Results
V&E+
V&E+

It was cause for celebration for Vinson & Elkins partners Matt Stammel and Jim Thompson. On July 1, 2020, after a six-day trial, Judge Marvin Isgur of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court handed a complete victory to V&E client Gavilan Resources. Judge Isgur even took the unusual step of reading his lengthy opinion…

V&E+

September 11, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

What might happen if China or Russia attacked the nation’s electricity grid? The answer to that question is at the heart of an executive order issued by President Trump on May 1. Foreign adversaries are increasingly looking for ways to exploit weaknesses in the country’s bulk-power system (“BPS”) – the large interconnected electrical system that…

V&E+

August 14, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

It wasn’t just another day in court for Pat Mizell. On August 1, 2019, the V&E partner stood before U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in a courtroom in Austin, Texas. Attorneys Tony McDonald, Josh Hammer and Mark Pulliam had sued Mizell’s client, the State Bar of Texas, claiming it is unconstitutional for an attorney to…

V&E+

August 5, 2020
Insight
Insight

On July 22, 2020, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) was not limited in its review of substitute claims in an inter partes review (“IPR”), and therefore could reject such claims as not patent-eligible under § 101. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2020).

V&E IP Update

July 24, 2020
Insight
Insight

The United States Supreme Court issued the long-awaited Booking.com decision on Tuesday.

V&E IP Update

July 1, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

Recently Victoria’s Secret captured headlines that had nothing to do with the retailer’s famous fashion show. Victoria Secret’s parent company, L Brands, and private equity firm Sycamore Partners (“Sycamore”) exchanged lawsuits after Sycamore sought to walk away from its pending acquisition of the lingerie company. Sycamore claimed that Victoria’s Secret had experienced a “material adverse…

V&E+

June 29, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

A former federal prosecutor, a veteran compliance officer, and a partner at an elite global law firm. It may sound like a dream team for defending companies facing government investigations, but in fact, it’s one man: Mike Ward. Ward, who joined V&E’s San Francisco office as a partner earlier this year, has an uncommonly varied…

V&E+

June 4, 2020
Insight
Insight

On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit reissued a previously nonprecedential opinion as precedential that held that inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioners could not benefit from its earlier Arthrex holding to challenge adverse Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on Appointments Clause grounds. Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020).

V&E IP Update

May 7, 2020
Insight
Insight

On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims directed to software executed on a server are obvious in view of prior art that taught performing the same method on a local device. Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc., No. 2019-1163, slip op. (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020). The Court applied the holding of KSR to hold that such modifications are obvious “predictable variations” of the prior art that are not patentable.

V&E IP Update

May 7, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

Does five against two make for a fair fight? The respondents in a recent arbitration didn’t think so. Catic USA (“Catic”) is an aviation-focused California corporation owned by a Chinese parent company. After an arbitration panel handed an unfavorable opinion to Catic following a dispute with its investors, the corporation sought relief in court. The…

V&E+

April 23, 2020
Insight
Insight

On April 20, 2020, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office’s application of the one-year time limit for filing an inter partes review after filing a complaint alleging patent infringement “is closely related to its decision whether to institute [an] inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappelable by § 314(d).”

V&E IP Update

April 21, 2020
V&E+
V&E+

How do you win over a jury in a $100 million case centered on the world of natural gas pipelines? Just ask V&E partners Jim Thompson and Phillip Dye. Last summer, Thompson and Dye notched an impressive victory on behalf of longtime and significant V&E client Antero Resources in a contract dispute case against gas…

V&E+

April 3, 2020