IP|Trend: The Importance of Consumer Surveys in Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Need for Seamless Coordination of District Court & PTAB Litigation
IP|Trend: Inter Partes Review: Is it Litigation or Something Else?
Post-Grant Insights: The Preparation and Pace of the PTAB
2014 IP Record Shows Continued Growth for Design Patent Filings
Controlling the Cost of Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Impact of PTAB Appeals on the Federal Circuit
.bit: Why Brands Need to Pay Attention
Post-Grant Insights: Key Considerations in PTAB Oral Hearings
Post-Grant Insights: What claims to include in your PTAB petition
Polsinelli Podcasts - Removing Caps on Punitive Damages: What is the Impact on Business?
IP|Trend: Dust up After the Breach
Thinking Compliance When Protecting Your Ideas Internationally
What are the Implications of Alice v. CLS?
Protecting Trade Secrets During Business Collaboration
IP|Trend: Inter Partes Review: Is It Still Right For You?
IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
Bill Beutler on Editing Wikipedia
Inter Partes Review Appeals: What You Need to Know
In an inter partes review Medtronic Inc. et al. v. Troy R. Norred, M.D., the Petitioner sought guidance from the Board regarding the Patent Owner's objections during the deposition of an expert appearing on behalf of the...more
Motions to Exclude Evidence have been one of the features of inter partes review practice that have, to date, had a less significant effect than expected. Very few motions have been granted, largely because the Board...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Depomed sued Actavis for infringing seven patents related to a dosage form capable of being retained in the stomach, allowing for the delayed-release of gabapentin in the small...more
Inter partes review and covered business method review (collectively IPR) proceedings have now settled in as a new strategic tool for invalidating asserted patents. The early cases that have worked through to a final written...more
Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp. -
Addressing issues of claim construction and the requirements for a motion to amend, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruled that the...more
In Norman IP Holdings v. TP-Link Technologies, Co., et al., the Defendants moved to stay the litigation pending completion of an inter partes review involving the patents-in-suit. The plaintiff did not respond to the motion....more
It is hard to explain how this post, discussing the first ever granted Motion to Amend in an inter partes review, sat in “draft” mode for over 5 months. This is especially perplexing given the difficulty Patent Owners are...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement of claims 1, 16, 36, and 37 of each of the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit all claim pharmaceutical compositions containing propofol...more
On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. While the order itself may not be...more
Anyone that has been monitoring the outcome of district court cases recently will be aware of the perils of not including sufficient information, or not timely supplementing, preliminary infringement or invalidity contentions...more
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, clarifying what it means to be patentable subject matter. With one stroke of the pen, the Supreme Court...more
In this patent infringement action, the district court granted a motion to compel filed by Tellabs against Fujitsu. Fujitsu then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit to overturn the decision of the...more
In VMware, Inc. v. Good Technology Software, Inc., IPR2014-01324, Paper 11 (October 20, 2014), the Board allowed the patent owner to move for additional discovery regarding the real party in interest, one of the few topics...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: UTC claimed that Sandoz induced infringement of the ’007 patent by instructing physicians to dilute its product for use intravenously. The asserted claim required a particular...more
According to its mission statement, Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit entity “dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and...more
Castigating the Supreme Court, at least in patent circles, has become as prevalent as the Court's forays into patent law have been to overrule the Federal Circuit. While even those who give the Court the benefit of the doubt...more
Several of the Board’s decisions in inter partes reviews are now on appeal. The statute specifically allows the Patent Office to intervene, which is bit like allowing a district court judge to intervene in the appeal of a DJ...more
A limited number of cases, to date, have dealt with the issue of analogous prior art in an obviousness analysis. In Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., IPR2014-00358, the Board addressed this type of issue, finding in...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The one asserted claim in the ’031 patent, claim 7, depends from non-asserted independent claim 1. Claim 7 narrows claim 1 by limiting it to a specific delivery method and requires...more
On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entertained oral argument in the interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of Myriad’s motion for preliminary injunction against Ambry Genetics....more
On October 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., case number 13-854. At issue is the level of deference that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.
Tris Pharma Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-01309; filed October 15, 2014 in the District Court of...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Precedex is commonly used as a sedative. Specifically, the FDA has approved Precedex for two uses: (i) sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during...more
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Apotex appealed the district court’s finding that the ’556 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ’556 patent describes a method for making moexipril tablets used...more
U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management Co. -
In the first final written decision issued in a Covered Business Method (CBM) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) ruled that it has...more
Find an Intellectual Property Author »
Back to Top