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
The AIA Has Moved the Cheese
Emerging Markets: Opportunity, Risk, and What it Means for Brand Protection
How is Graphene Currently Used and What is the Hope for the Future?
Derivation Proceedings: What You Need to Know
What is Graphene? Fenwick Patent Attorney Has the Answer
Examining Trends in Worldwide Design IP Filings
Two Tips for Inventors Filing Patent Applications
Track One and the Patent Prosecution Highway
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
Lessons from Nautilus v. Biosig at the Supreme Court
Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 72-interview with Michael Rasmussen
The Evolution of Trade Secret Damages
The Art of Communicating to a Jury
The Evolution of Patent Damages
The USPTO has been seeking feedback on the PTAB trial proceedings established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. A Federal Register Notice from June 27, 2014 contained the "Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings...more
Alice and its immediate aftermath in the lower courts –
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the US Supreme Court held that claims to “generic computer implementation” of abstract ideas are...more
• The Full Federal Court has unanimously confirmed that isolated nucleic acids, either DNA or RNA, are patentable in Australia.
• The decision is in contrast to the recent decision of the US Supreme Court, which held a...more
The 2013-14 term of the Supreme Court ended with multiple decisions on intellectual property issues.
Over the past few months, the Court issued a number of patent law related opinions covering ground from claim...more
After the jury trial between Apple and Samsung, and shortly before the July 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested leave to file supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of two of Apple's...more
On September 17, 2015, the USPTO held the first “bicoastal” Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership meeting, with live participation from the USPTO’s main campus in Alexandria, VA and from San Jose...more
During a session at today's biotechnology/chemical/pharmaceutical (BCP) customer partnership meeting, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided an update on the status of the Myriad-Mayo Guidance. ...more
Last year in AMP v Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that isolated, naturally occuring DNA are not patent eligible, which caused considerable consternation in the biotech community. However, this does not...more
On September 2nd, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) entered judgment in an inter partes review styled Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. (IPR 2012-00022). The Board found that Ariosa demonstrated, by a...more
The contraction of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 that Alice, Mayo, Bilski, and other recent court cases have triggered has placed a cloud of uncertainty over a large number of patents. Fortunately,...more
Airline Rewards Conversion Method Invalid Under Alice and Bilski -
On September 2, 2014, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas, ruled that two patents on a...more
In This Presentation:
- Key IP Concerns for Software Tech Companies
- New Post-Grant Proceedings for Challenging Patents
- Impact of Alice on Software Patents and the Importance of Building a Strong Patent...more
RECENT DECISIONS -
NAUTILUS, INC. V. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. Patent: Decided: June 3, 2014:
Holding: In a unanimous (9-0) opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the Federal...more
Hatch-Waxman Litigation in a Nutshell -
Hatch-Waxman litigation refers to pharmaceutical patent litigation between a brand drug manufacturer and a generic drug manufacturer under the Hatch-Waxman Act (“Act”). The Act...more
Last month, in AbbVie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the District Court for the Southern District of New York that U.S. Patent No....more
A five-judge bench of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) has today unanimously decided that Myriad Genetics Inc's (Myriad) patent covering the isolated BRCA1 gene (Patent) is patentable subject...more
Are proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") more like prosecution or more like litigation? This might appear to be a purely academic question, except for one significant issue -- litigation prosecution...more
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International.1 The Court held that a group of patents related to mitigating settlement risk were not drawn to patent eligible subject...more
On June 25, 2014, just six days after the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the USPTO issued its Preliminary Examination Instructions (“Guidance”) in view of the case. ...more
In a not particularly well-written opinion that breaks no new ground, the Federal Circuit considered a consolidated appeal of two patents directed to methods of promoting hair growth, including, in particular, eyelash hair...more
In two decisions issued under the same name (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for Lysteda®, but found that they were not infringed by either...more
In the second of a pair of decisions issued last Friday, styled Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding by the District Court that the generic ANDA challenger had not shown the...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.
AstraZeneca AB v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-01051; filed August 15, 2014 in the District Court of...more
As the summer winds down, vacations recede in the rear-view mirrors, and the “school” year begins, two recent cases offer a refresher course in the dire consequences awaiting inventors who misrepresent prior art during...more
Defendant Ablexis requested that the court compel the production of documents associated with the prosecution of non-U.S. patent applications related to the patent-in-suit. The court said that a defendant’s statement that the...more
Find an Intellectual Property Author »
Back to Top