Jones Day

In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”)...

The Supreme Court held that copyright owners who file a timely claim may obtain damages no matter when the copyright infringement occurred.

California's privacy enforcement agency has published crucial data minimization guidance for businesses.

The Indian Supreme Court invokes curative jurisdiction to set aside US$960 million award to avoid a "grave miscarriage of justice," seven years after...

The Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Energy finalized guidance on the requirements for new and used clean...

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") published a final rule on April 30, 2024, altering how covered entities fulfill their large trader...

In October 2020, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) Secretariat released a report addressing its “Pillar Two” blueprint for an overhaul of the international tax system. Pillar Two provides for a minimum tax of at least 15% on the earnings of qualified multinationals in each of the jurisdictions where they operate. While the Pillar Two rules remain something of a work in progress, they are, given they have already been adopted in several jurisdictions, a business reality. It is clear that this regime, when fully enacted, will likely give rise to complex multijurisdictional disputes. This White Paper thus sets out best practices multinationals should adopt both in anticipation of, and to avoid, such disputes.

The Situation: The Australian government has restated its commitment to foreign investment and announced procedural reforms to Australia's foreign...

The Situation: The California Supreme Court recently granted review of a California Court of Appeal decision, Gilead Life Sciences, Inc. v. The...

The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed under 112(f). According to the Board’s Rules, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function... limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).