February 14, 2018 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) appealed findings of no infringement made by the United District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appealed the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
February 14, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
On February 6, 2018, in Actelion v. Matal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
February 5, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci, Chris Duerden
In Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (CACD January 22, 2018), the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion to award attorney fees due to Defendants’ exceptional litigation tactics under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
International Trade Commission Becomes Even More Potent Venue for Victims of Trade Secret Misappropriation
January 30, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nick Armington
Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those companies provide a commodity good.
January 30, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon
In an interesting order issued recently in BroadSign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Judge Swain of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
January 24, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Monique Winters Macek
When trying to overcome an obviousness rejection of a patent claim, an argument that two or more cited references cannot be combined may be used. For example, it can be argued that the combination is improper because the modification of a reference completely changes its “fundamental principle of operation.”
January 24, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Elissa Kingsland
Under U.S. patent law, while there is no duty to perform a search of relevant art, inventors and those associated with filing or prosecuting patent applications as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 have a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) all known prior art or other information that may be “material” in determining patentability.
Damages Apportionment for Infringing A Method Claim When The Smallest Saleable Unit Performs Infringing and Non-Infringing Functions
January 22, 2018 | Blog | By Stephen J. Akerley, Philip C. Ducker
The Federal Circuit’s damages apportionment jurisprudence is an ever-evolving area of the law. On January 10, 2018, a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit revisited the issue in connection with a patent covering a method for providing computer security in the case Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom: en banc Federal Circuit Held The Time-Bar Determinations (§ 315(b)) Appealable
January 16, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Catherine Xu
In its first en banc decision of 2018, the Federal Circuit held that “judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s determination that the petitioner satisfied the timeliness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) governing the filing of petitions for inter partes review.”
January 8, 2018 | Blog | By Lisa Adams, Derek Constantine
If you purchased anything from a website using a one-click purchase button, you indirectly paid Amazon for that ability, at least up until September 11, 2017 when Amazon’s patent to this technology expired. As a result, one-click purchasing might become the new norm.
January 3, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
As 2018 begins and IP strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2017. According to the many readers of Global IP Matters, hot topics included navigating the waters of U.S. patent prosecution, evaluating obviousness, and ITC treatment of standard-essential patents (SEPs).
January 2, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
In a recent development from the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne concluded that defendants Globalfoundries, Qualcomm, and Samsung waited too long prior to moving to dismiss or transfer the case due to improper venue.
December 28, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner
On December 19, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that the state of Minnesota waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to challenges to patent validity by inter partes review (IPR) by filing suit in federal court alleging infringement of the same patent being challenged by IPR.
December 21, 2017 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
On December 19, 2017 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) held a “Chat with the Chief” webinar in which Chief Judge David Ruschke presented very recent developments on a variety of topics related to practice before the Board, including Aqua Products guidance for motions to amend, new procedures for handling remands, and the expanded panel process.
December 19, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci
Further to our ongoing coverage of the post-TC Heartland patent litigation landscape, a pair of recent and interesting cases from Texas and Delaware further evolved this important venue-related jurisprudence.
December 18, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski
In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize biosimilars applicants who fail to disclose information about their abbreviated Biologics License Applications (“aBLAs”) or manufacturing processes as required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A).
December 12, 2017 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Brad M Scheller, Inna Dahlin
On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal.
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Oil States Regarding Constitutional Challenge to Inter Partes Review
December 8, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Chris Duerden
We first covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017), a case with the potential to substantially alter the patent litigation landscape, back in June. On Monday, November 27, 2017 the Court heard oral arguments on whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) since September 16, 2012 to analyze the validity of existing patents – violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum and without a jury.
December 4, 2017 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
In patent prosecution, the feedback loop between interested parties including patent prosecutors, inventors, and in-house counsel helps to provide the best patent applications and office action responses for a high quality issued patent.
November 30, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Jinnie Reed
On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance on motions to amend based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
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