Photo of Zijian Han

Zijian Han

Subscribe to Zijian Han's Posts

Zijian Han is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Contact:Read more about Zijian Han

In SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, the Federal Circuit found that a district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment defendant based on the defendant’s sending an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement to the declaratory judgment plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff infringed the defendant’s patents by selling products through Amazon into the state.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds Personal Jurisdiction in an Amazon Product Dispute

This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) was correct in declining to consider the patent owner’s certain evidence not submitted in compliance with the Board’s rules and in making a determination regarding written description requirements.Continue Reading Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1269, 2022-1270 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2023)

We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023.Continue Reading 2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries

As patent litigators are well-aware, the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware, the two most popular venues for patent litigation, each issued orders regulating litigation in their districts in 2022. So as of early 2023, what effect have those orders had on patent filings?Continue Reading Early 2023 Update: Where Are Plaintiffs Filing Patent Cases Now?

UPDATE: On Feb. 22, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued an errata to the original decision clarifying that the IPR estoppel only applies to challenged claims. The corrected language reads, in relevant part, that “estoppel applies […] to all grounds not stated in the petition but which reasonably could have been asserted against the claims included in the petition.” This errata alleviated concerns that the ruling might be interpreted to extend IPR estoppel to unchallenged claims.
Continue Reading Recent Expansion of IPR Estoppel Scope Viewed As Victory for Patent Owners