Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

When the PTAB Attacks! - In the past few years, the public's perception of the patent system in the United States has been at a low point. One of the causes of this lack of confidence in the system has been the increase...more

PTAB Releases Orange Book-Listed Patent Study

Pharmaceutical patent owners have been one of the more vocal groups decrying the creation and existence of inter partes reviews and other PTAB post-issuance proceedings. And for good reason. Congress enacted the...more

Motions to Amend at the PTAB -- Does Anyone Have the Burden (And Will That Change)?

Last year, the Federal Circuit decided the Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal case en banc in what could be considered the epitome of a fractured decision. After 148 pages and five separate opinions, the only agreed-to result...more

More Aqua Products Fallout -- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge

In November, Chief Judge David P. Ruschke of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products" (see "PTAB Motions to...more

PTAB Motions to Amend Post-Aqua Products -- Chief Judge Ruschke Issues Guidance

On November 21, 2017, PTAB Chief Judge Ruschke issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products." As we reported at the time, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products determined that the PTAB...more

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) -- One Last Dance . . .

Last June, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court handed down its interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of biosimilar drugs. As we reported at the time, the...more

More Views on Venue -- Federal Circuit Addresses In re Micron Fallout

Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged...more

CAFC Shifts the Burden for IPR Claim Amendments from the Patent Owner to the Petitioner

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the...more

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal (Fed. Cir. 2017)

More Than a Mere Academic Exercise - On October 4, 2017, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB can no longer place the burden of establishing the patentability...more

Views on Venue -- Take Two: Did the District of Delaware Get It Right?

We recently reported that Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware interpreted the second prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan because the first prong was no...more

Views on Venue -- District of Delaware Provides Some Guidance on Venue in ANDA Cases Post-TC Heartland

Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged...more

Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In the third installment of the "Amgen v." trilogy of BPCIA Federal Circuit cases, the Court in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. answered a question that had been lingering since the very first case -- can a reference product...more

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (2017)

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of...more

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State...more

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Sandoz v. Amgen -- Patent Dancing and Missing Puzzle Pieces

On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. Sandoz was represented by Deanne E. Maynard, and Amgen was represented by Seth P. Waxman. In addition, Anthony A. Yang presented the...more

Supreme Court Preview -- Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.

On Wednesday, April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. case. This case involves the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which will be...more

PTAB Update -- Shire Has Rare Motion to Amend Granted

On March 31, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB" or "Board") granted a motion to amend claims in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Shire LLC (IPR2015-02009). This is, of course, an uncommon event. Depending on...more

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC -- 98 Professors Chime In

As we reported last week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case on Monday March 27. In that previous report, we covered the background of the case, and...more

Supreme Court Preview -- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Next week, on Monday March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case. This case involves the interpretation of the current patent venue statute. And while...more

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 15, Issue 1

In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more

Supreme Court to Review BPCIA -- Amgen v. Sandoz Petitions for Writs of Certiorari Granted

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted both petitions for writs of certiorari and consolidated the Sandoz v. Amgen (No. 15-1039) and Amgen v. Sandoz (No. 15-1195) appeals. Sandoz had petitioned the Court on February 16, 2016...more

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Can any petitioner appeal a Board's final written decision from an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding? Contrary to the language of 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) which permits any party "who is dissatisfied with" the...more

Patent Trolls Beware! -- Supreme Court to Review Patent Venue Statute

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has been single-handedly tackling the so-called Patent Troll problem. Sure, in that time, the President and Congress have made Patent Trolls a focus of their agendas, and have...more

Supreme Court Preview -- Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.

On Tuesday, December 6, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), with the pertinent section highlighted...more

Biotechnology Innovation Organization's Amicus Brief for In re Aqua Products, Inc.

On Friday, December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. ...more

93 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide