Intellectual Property

U.S. patent applicants often have an interest in expediting the patent examination process. The desire to speed examination can result from issues related to the availability of an inventor, possible infringing activity by a third party, business conditions or the advantageous nature of the technology that require a clear understanding of a stake holders patent rights, or other factors.

U.S. patent applications filed after March 16, 2013, when the “First-Inventor-to-File” portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) took effect, have started to be published.

The most hotly debated issue at this year’s GCR IP & Antitrust Conference, held on April 14 in Washington, DC, was the DOJ’s guidance issued in a February business review letter to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

On April 14 in Washington, DC, Global Competition Review hosted its Second Annual IP & Antitrust USA conference.

Tuesday, April 14, the House Judiciary Committee convened to discuss H.R. 9, the “Innovation Act,” which was introduced in February 2015 by the Committee’s Chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

In a decision released on March 25, 2015, FDA denied a Citizen’s Petition that would have effectively made the information and patent exchange described in § 262 of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) a precondition for approval.

Today, as we previewed here, the US Supreme Court analyzed the question of whether patent holders should be allowed to contract for royalty payments that continue to accrue after the expiration of the subject patent.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director, Michelle Lee, announced on Friday that a series of actual and proposed rulemakings aimed at improving post-grant proceedings before the PTAB will be forthcoming—some effective immediately and others rolling out over the summer and beyond.

Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964) that a license agreement requiring royalty payments for use of a patented invention after expiration of the patent term is unlawful per se.

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.

Filing an appeal brief with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can be an effective way to advance prosecution and secure allowable claims. Last November, we summarized Tips for Writing Effective PTAB Briefs to help propel applicants to PTAB victory.

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.

Applicants identified upon a U.S. patent application’s filing can impact the ownership rights to the patent application throughout prosecution. Prior to implementation of relevant aspects of the America Invents Act (AIA) on September 16, 2012, patent application Applicants could only be Inventors. 

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).

The Innovation Act introduced in the House on February 5, 2015 is designed to curb patent abuse, but as currently drafted it doesn't address the worst forms of the problem.

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”

The America Invents Act (AIA) gives the Board broad discretion in deciding whether or not to institute an IPR or CBM when the Petition addresses substantially the same prior art or arguments to those previously considered by the PTO.

The general rule is that a patent claim’s preamble does not limit the claim unless the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Pacing Techs. v. Garmin Int’l, No. 2014-1396 (Feb. 18, 2015) highlights some application drafting choices that, under post-issuance scrutiny, resulted in limitations being read into an independent claim.

From 1 March 2015, a new agreement will come into force that allows European patents to be validated in Morocco. This is the first time that a non-member country of the European Patent Organisation will have recognised European patents as national patents.