Intellectual Property Science, Computers & Technology Civil Procedure

Read Intellectual Property Law updates, alerts, news, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

Motion for Additional Discovery Seeking Details of Kyle Bass-led Coalition Partially Succeeds

We continue to monitor the various strategies and tactics being employed by pharma companies that have been targeted by the “Coalition for Affordable Drugs” – a group led by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass. In a recent decision,...more

Only Basic Functions of a Processor Avoid Need for Disclosed Algorithm - EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Addressing the question of what corresponding structure must be disclosed to support a means-plus-function claim element, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court finding that eight...more

No Induced Infringement Where Off-Label Use of a Drug Is Not “Inevitable” - Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp.

Finding that a drug label’s language did not rise to the level of “active encouragement” that would induce doctors to infringe, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of a...more

News from Abroad: Ariosa Diagnostics V Sequenom and Isis Innovation -- A European View

The June 12, 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit in the above case has been discussed by Kevin Noonan in his posting of 22 June, but it is believed that the factual and legal background could benefit from further discussion....more

Activities For sNDA and Citizen’s Petition Protected by “Safe Harbor” - Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals,...

In a case addressing the “safe harbor” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that information submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug...more

Federal Circuit Invalidates Another Diagnostic Patent

In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., Slip Op. 2014-1139, 2014-114 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Sequenom’s U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (the ‘540 Patent) was...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal on Grounds of Patent Ineligibility

On June 23, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) dismissing the complaints in four related actions for infringement of U.S....more

Markman Decision Issues In Dispute Relating To A Method For Representation Of Space-Related Data Of An Object

ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-217 – RGA, June 26, 2015. Andrews, J. The court considers 14 terms from the patent-in-suit. Oral argument took place on May 12, 2015....more

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Holds Claims Indefinite Based on Prosecution History in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v....

On June 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated the Federal...more

Teva Standard of Review Becomes Outcome-Determinative in Fed. Circuit Ruling Last Week

Earlier this year in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015), the Supreme Court changed the appellate standard of review for claim construction decisions. The Court held that while claim construction...more

The Federal Circuit Alters the Means-Plus-Function Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s recent en banc opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082, *2 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (Williamson II) may result in courts finding that more claims include...more

#AliceStorm In June: A Deeper Dive into Court Trends, and New Data On Alice inside the USPTO

The most important thing that happened in June was not the invalidation of yet another pile of patents, but the rather more consequential decision of the Supreme Court to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. ...more

Lessons From the Rare Grant of an IPR Motion to Amend

Although many Patent Owners have complained about the high hurdles for amending claims in an IPR, the Board’s decision in Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc. IPR2013-00403 shows that the requirements are...more

Supreme Court Rejects Google’s Appeal in Java API Dispute

On June 29th, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Google’s appeal of the Federal Circuit’s 2014 ruling that that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of 37 Java API packages are entitled to...more

U.S. Supreme Court No Help to Google in API Copying Case

Back in October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to take up the appeal for Oracle v. Google (Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.). This case offered the Supreme Court a chance to weigh in on the IP protections afforded...more

Federal Circuit Strikes Final Blow to Celebrex Patent

In 2008, the Federal Circuit determined that claims 1-4 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,760,068 were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) over a related parent patent, in part because the ‘068 patent was filed...more

It’s Not Just What You Know, But When You Know – For Willful Infringement

Motion to Dismiss Willful Infringement Claims granted, Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Silergy Corporation, No. 14-cv-01745-VC (J. Chhabria) - This case centers around three patents which, according to Monolithic...more

In Rush to Invalidate Patents at Pleadings Stage, Are Courts Coloring Outside the Lines?

OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com and IPC v. Active Network are the most recent of a growing number of decisions dismissing software and business method patent lawsuits on the pleadings. In these decisions, the courts are...more

Litigation Alert: Even Spider-Man Can't Defeat Ban on Post-Patent Expiration Royalties

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more

Federal Circuit Creates New (non-Alice) Hurdle for Software Patents

In the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), dozens of courts have declared scores of patents to be invalid as not satisfying the requirements of §101...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2015

Accused Infringer’s Good-Faith Belief In Invalidity No Defense To Induced Infringement - In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, the Supreme Court held a good-faith belief a patent is invalid is not a...more

Computer-Implemented Business Methods: Patentable?

In this Presentation: - Patentability of Computer-implemented Business Methods – A Recap - Research Affiliates v Commissioner of Patents - RPL Central v Commissioner of Patents - The Global Context:...more

PTAB vs. Federal Circuit Update

To date, the Federal Circuit has weighed in on 15 PTAB decisions from inter partes review proceedings. In 3 of the 15 decisions, the Federal Circuit has issued a substantive opinion: 1) In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies –...more

Williamson Decision Will Encourage Patent Defendants to Challenge Software Claims

In Williamson v. Citrix Online, announced on June 16, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a partially en banc opinion that claims expressed in terms of functionality can be subject to statutory requirements...more

Federal Circuit Defers To District Court’s Factual Finding That “Voltage Source Means” Connotes Sufficient Structure To Avoid...

Today, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Lighting Ballast v. Philips on remand from the Supreme Court after the Teva decision changed the standard of review of a district court’s claim construction. One of the more...more

2,265 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 91

Follow Intellectual Property 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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*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.
×