News & Analysis as of

Civil Procedure Intellectual Property

Read Civil Procedure updates, alerts, news, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:

Providing a Service Alone is not Contributory Infringement

In the Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, [2016-1766](June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,223,552; 7,459,286; and 8,349,581 are not directed to...more

Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. -- Petition for En Banc Rehearing and Amicus Briefs

Proceedings for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303 (Recognicorp, assigned from IQ Biometrix) resulted in an appeal decided on 28 April 2017, which decision was reviewed in this space by Michael Borella, and also...more

Captain Morgan Defeats Admiral Nelson in a Rum Branding Battle

by Bennett Jones LLP on

The victory in the fight between two rum competitors demonstrates that unregistered trade dress rights are alive and well in Canada, admissible survey evidence remains a useful tool for proving confusion, and a competing...more

Supreme Court Affords Greater Leeway to Biosimilars in the 'Patent Dance'

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what happens when biosimilar applicants do not follow the regulatory framework for disputes with reference product sponsors — a process known as the “patent dance.” Since...more

TC Heartland – One Month Later Delaware, Texas, California and Illinois Courts Most Popular Venues

by Orrick - NorCal IP Group on

We previously reported on the early impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland based on the first few weeks of new filings. It has now been one month, and based on the filing data for the month since TC Heartland...more

Exhaustion and the “Right to Repair”: Ownership Rights after Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc.

by Fish & Richardson on

Hailed by some as the “right to repair”, on May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller’s patent rights are not valid beyond the first sale of the patented product. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc....more

Supreme Court Cuts Back Patent Owners’ Post-Sale Rights

by Weintraub Tobin on

Patent owners can no longer restrict the use of their patented products after the products are sold. Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, a patent owner’s rights are “exhausted” once the patent owner sells the product. ...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2017

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more

Update: Ban on Registering “Disparaging” Trademarks Unconstitutional

by Genova Burns LLC on

In a unanimous opinion based on differing rationale, the Supreme Court held that the federal prohibition on registering “disparaging” trademarks is unconstitutional. (Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293)....more

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of...more

Supreme Court strikes down Lanham Act's disparagement clause as unconstitutional

by Dentons on

In a landmark decision that will significantly impact those seeking to block or cancel trademarks they consider offensive, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the "disparagement clause" of the federal trademark...more

Litigation Update: Amgen v. Hospira

by Goodwin on

As we reported yesterday in the Amgen v. Hospira litigation, Amgen filed a motion for leave to file an amended brief in support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sandoz v....more

SCOTUS: Supreme Court Holds Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act Violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

On June 19, 2017, in Matal v. Tam, previously Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court handed down its most impactful interpretation of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to date by holding that at its intersection with the...more

Supreme Court Holds Entities May Register Disparaging Trademarks

by Morgan Lewis on

The Lanham Act’s restriction on trademarks that disparage persons living or dead violates the First Amendment. Though the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has sometimes reversed its position on whether a...more

Victory for The Slants and Redskins: Supreme Court Okays Offensive Trademarks

This week, the United States Supreme Court settled the issue of whether an offensive name, in this case, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants,” can properly be registered as a trademark. The Court’s conclusion?...more

Status Regarding Dupixent® Litigations

by Goodwin on

We previously reported that Sanofi and Regeneron filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its approved Dupixent® (dupilumab) product does not infringe Amgen’s U.S. Pat. 8,679,487 (“the ’487 patent”), and that...more

SCOTUS and the Slants: Disparagement Proscription of § 2(A) of the Lanham Act Unconstitutional

by McDermott Will & Emery on

A unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Matal v. Tam affirmed an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional under the...more

PTAB Denies Timely, Relevant Supplement to Petition

by Jones Day on

By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...more

Computer-Based Publishing Patent Goes Offline after Alice Inquiry

In a recent order from the District of Massachusetts, the court granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a patent infringement dispute, finding the asserted patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s...more

In Amgen v. Hospira, Amgen seeks to amend its PI motion in light of Sandoz v. Amgen

by Goodwin on

As we previously reported in the Amgen v. Hospira district court litigation regarding Hospira’s proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit® (epoetin alfa), Amgen filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Hospira...more

Judge Essex Updates Ground Rules to Limit Prehearing Briefs, Opening Statements

by Jones Day on

Last week, Judge Essex issued a notice updating his ground rules in active investigations pending before him...more

SCOTUS: Supreme Court Takes Up Constitutionality of AIA Reviews

On June 12, 2017, in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, Case No. 16-712, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari on the question of whether the IPR regime set out by Congress in the AIA is constitutional....more

In Landmark Decision, the Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision of the Lanham Act that Prohibits Registration of Disparaging...

by Payne & Fears on

On Monday, June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S._ (2017), unanimously struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(a), on grounds that it violates the Free Speech Clause...more

Supreme Court overturns the Federal Circuit, granting more flexibility to biosimilar makers

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court again reversed the Federal Circuit in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., interpreting the meaning of key provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of...more

Supreme Court to Review Whether PTAB Must Address All Issues Raised in IPR Petition

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Echoing Judge Newman’s dissent in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, Case Nos. 15-1346; -1347 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 7, 2016) (per curiam) (Newman, J,...more

9,958 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 399
Cybersecurity

Follow Civil Procedure Updates on:

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.