Earlier today, April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC that inter partes review proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the...more
4/25/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
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
Leading up to the Supreme Court oral argument for Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC on November 27, 2017, there was a lot of discussion regarding whether patents were a private or public right. ...more
12/1/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Certiorari ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
Right to a Jury ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
Last week, we provided a preview of the Supreme Court case Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC. that will be argued on November 27, 2017. The underlying case has received a lot of attention, so it...more
11/22/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
Right to a Jury ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that were ultimately appealed from IPR Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB. The first of these, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's...more
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 biosimilar drugs. On...more
6/27/2017
/ Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS
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
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
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
In other Supreme Court news from Monday, June 20, 2016, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs in the Sandoz v. Amgen (No. 15-1039) and Amgen v. Sandoz (No. 15-1195) appeals to express the views of the United...more
6/22/2016
/ Amicus Briefs ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Cross-Complaints ,
Declaratory Relief ,
FDA Approval ,
Injunctive Relief ,
IP License ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Popular ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS ,
Solicitor General
The saga of the first-filed IPR petition (IPR2012-00001) came to a close today when the Supreme Court decided the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee case. We have been following this case ever since the PTAB issued its...more
6/21/2016
/ Appeals ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Due Process ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Authority ,
USPTO
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 should be within the sound discretion of a district court, albeit...more
6/14/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Appeals ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Highmark ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Proof ,
Standard of Review ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Totality of Circumstances Test ,
Willful Infringement
Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee appeal (Supreme Court docket number 15-466). The Court was considering two issues related to the recently implemented IPR...more
On March 4, the Supreme Court announced that the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee appeal would be argued on April 25, 2016 (the last week of oral hearings for the October Term 2015). As we reported previously, the...more
Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket...more
2/24/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Damages ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Highmark v. Allcare ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Willful Infringement
On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket...more
10/20/2015
/ Abuse of Process ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Bad Faith ,
Certiorari ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Enhanced Penalties ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Willful Infringement
Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC case. As we have previously reported, this case was the first appeal of the first...more
7/10/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Amicus Briefs ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Owners Association ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
PHRMA ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva v Sandoz ,
USPTO
The More Things Change (Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America), the More They Stay the Same (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.) -
On June 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit handed down...more
6/26/2015
/ Claim Construction ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Sandoz ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals ,
Teva v Sandoz
In This Issue:
- Tips for Developing a Cost-Effective Foreign Patent Strategy
- Supreme Court Holds that Trademark Tacking Should be Decided by a Jury in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
- Amending...more
3/5/2015
/ Computer-Related Inventions ,
Expert Testimony ,
Foreign Patent Applications ,
Hana Financial v Hana Bank ,
Patent Cooperation Treaty ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Tacking ,
Trademarks
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court held yesterday that an "appellate court must apply a 'clear error,' not de novo, standard of review" to the evidentiary underpinnings of a district court's claim...more
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that an “appellate court must apply a ‘clear error,’ not de novo, standard of review” to the evidentiary underpinnings of a district court’s...more
As we reported yesterday, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer that an "appellate court must apply a 'clear error,' not de novo, standard of review" to the evidentiary underpinnings of a...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
12/19/2014
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Obviousness ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Reform ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Software
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more
10/15/2014
/ Claim Construction ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Facebook ,
Google ,
Intel ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva v Sandoz ,
Verizon
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more