September 19, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd
After an eight-year battle through the Federal Courts, the fight over attorneys’ fees in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness has likely reached its end with the Federal Circuit upholding the hotly disputed $1.6 million award to Defendant Octane Fitness.
In a Reversal, Federal Circuit Finds Data Processing Claims Patent-Eligible Under Section 101 in Visual Memory v. NVIDIA
August 23, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller, Robert Moore
Last week, the Federal Circuit held computer memory system patent claims not abstract and thus patent-eligible under Section 101, reversing a lower court dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6).
August 21, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Tiffany Knapp
The Supreme Court’s decision five months ago in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands was a sea change in the way courts interpret venue for patent infringement cases.
August 15, 2017 | Blog | By Paul Brockland
On July 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re OptumInsight denied OptumInsight’s petition for writ of mandamus on privilege waiver.
ITC Denies Suspension or Temporary Rescission of Remedial Orders After PTAB Invalidates Patents at Issue
July 28, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Aarti Shah, Patrick Driscoll, Tiffany Knapp
In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-945 pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) separate finding that the patent claims at issue are invalid.
July 26, 2017 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Joe Rutkowski
On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court ruling that claims of a patent directed to the Velcade® cancer treatment drug compound were invalid as obvious.
June 28, 2017 | Blog | By William Meunier, Peter Cuomo
In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant review.
ITC Issues Public Commission Opinion Clarifying Methodology for Allocating Domestic Industry Expenses and Issuing Exclusion Order against Product with Medical Applications
June 23, 2017 | Blog | By Aarti Shah, Daniel Weinger
On May 17, 2017, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reversed an ALJ’s ruling and found a violation of Section 337 in Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof and Methods of using the Same (“Certain Air Mattress Systems”), Inv. No. 337-TA-971, due to the importation of certain air mattresses, and components of air mattresses, by the named respondents.
June 22, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Chris Duerden
In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question whether the inter partes review (IPR) process violates the U.S. Constitution by “extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.”
June 14, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski
In a unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted key provisions of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”).
June 14, 2017 | Blog | By Aarti Shah, Patrick Driscoll
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the “’668 Patent”) on June 1, 2017.
June 13, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd
A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation and conduct of the litigants.
May 31, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Vincent Ferraro
In keeping with recent erosion of patent rights, patent owners’ power to control the post-sale use and sale of their patented products was severely limited this week by the U.S. Supreme Court in the highly anticipated case regarding the patent exhaustion doctrine, Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., No. 15-1189.
May 30, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nick Armington
A recent decision in the Northern District of Illinois gave life to the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
May 24, 2017 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Brad M Scheller, Serge Subach
The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue.
You Can Not Claim What you Don't Possess - Federal Circuit Holds Fiber Optic Claims Invalid under Section 112
May 18, 2017 | Blog | By John Bauer, Peter Cuomo
On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC that all of the appealed claims of a fiber optic patent held by Cirrex are invalid for lack of a written description support required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.
May 17, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski
On May 10, 2017, Amgen filed a complaint in the District of Delaware asserting that, under section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), Coherus infringed Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 (the “’707 patent”) by filing an abbreviated Biologic License Application (“aBLA”) for a biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) product.
May 17, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Tiffany Knapp
In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.
May 9, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of an invention more than one year prior to the effective filing date of a patent qualifies as prior art.
April 28, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Catherine Xu
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Explore Other Viewpoints:
- Arbitration, Mediation & Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Bankruptcy & Restructuring
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Consumer Product Safety
- Debt Financing
- EB-5 Financing
- Education & Nonprofits
- Employment, Labor & Benefits
- Energy & Sustainability
- Environmental Enforcement Defense
- Environmental Law
- FDA Regulatory
- Federal Circuit Appeals
- Financial Institution Litigation
- Government Law
- Health Care
- Health Care Compliance, Fraud and Abuse, & Regulatory Counseling
- Health Care Enforcement & Investigations
- Health Care Transactions
- Health Information Privacy & Security
- IP Due Diligence
- IPRs & Other Post Grant Proceedings
- Insolvency & Creditor Rights Litigation
- Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
- Insurance & Financial Services
- Insurance Consulting & Risk Management
- Insurance and Reinsurance Problem-Solving & Dispute Resolution
- Intellectual Property
- Investment Funds
- Licensing & Technology Transactions
- Life Sciences
- Litigation & Investigations
- M&A Litigation
- ML Strategies
- Medicare, Medicaid and Commercial Coverage & Reimbursement
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling
- Privacy & Cybersecurity
- Private Client
- Private Equity
- Products Liability & Complex Tort
- Project Development & Finance
- Public Finance
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
- Real Estate, Construction & Infrastructure
- Retail & Consumer Products
- Securities & Capital Markets
- Securities Litigation
- Sports & Entertainment
- Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark & Copyright
- Trademark Litigation
- Venture Capital & Emerging Companies
- White Collar Defense & Government Investigations