Skip to main content

Patent Litigation

Viewpoints

Filter by:

FTC Commissioners Weigh in on FRAND Debate

July 27, 2015 | Alert | By Sandra Badin, Michael Renaud

Two weeks ago, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, writing on her own behalf, submitted comments in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation) on how the International Trade Commission (ITC) should approach the adjudication of the FRAND defense when conducting the public interest analysis.

Writing on Her Own Behalf, Chairwoman Ramirez Takes a Position on FRAND

July 17, 2015 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Sandra Badin, Robert Moore

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez took the unusual step on July 13, 2015, of filing a written submission on her own behalf — and expressly not on behalf of her agency — in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation).
In a confluence of IP and antitrust law, a three judge panel for the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) 2013 modification of regulations under the Hart Scott Rodino (“HSR”) Act to require reporting of even partial transfers of pharmaceutical patent rights as an “asset acquisition” if all commercially significant rights are transferred.

Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is Not a Defense to Inducement Liability

May 28, 2015 | Alert | By James Wodarski, Sandra Badin, Rich Gervase

The Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. on Tuesday holding that a patent infringement defendant’s good faith belief that the patent in suit is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b).
Have you seen John Oliver’s piece about abuses in the patent system? If not, take a look here. The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host has quite a bit of fun at the expense of the patent system.
In a recent decision, the International Trade Commission rejected a petitioner’s attempt to use allegations of unfair competition and unfair acts as a possible way of working around the Federal Circuit’s bar on claims of induced infringement.
In an order released on March 19, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California denied Amgen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as well as its request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Sandoz from marketing its drug Zarxio®.
The U.S.I.T.C. instituted its first investigation under its 100-day pilot program for early determination of a specific potentially case-dispositive issue.
On March 12, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana joined the District of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas as the first courts to consider a generic drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action for an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction following the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014).
On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”
On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.

ALJ Lord Amends Ground Rules to Permit Reply Briefs

November 24, 2014 | Blog | By Aarti Shah

On November 17, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord amended her Ground Rules to permit parties filing motions to file a reply brief without first seeking leave from the ALJ.
The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have rarely reached consensus on any issues this term. However, they achieved unanimity in two patents cases recently, which may have a significant impact on you and your patent portfolio.

Could Federal Circuit Decision Weaken FRAND Defense?

May 7, 2014 | Blog | By Aarti Shah

On Monday, May 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by transferring the Microsoft v. Motorola case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued an order which may significantly impact the ability of participants in standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”) to obtain relief for patent infringement.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: