What is Bitcoin 2.0?
Will 2015 Bring New Regulations for Bitcoin Users?
Waldman: Stop Immunizing Websites That Allow Harassment
A Moment of Simple Justice - Snitching Ain't Easy
Data Privacy: The Next Frontier of Corporate Compliance
What are the Implications of Alice v. CLS?
After SoundCloud & Wunderlist: How Berlin plans to grow its startup scene
Diversity and Technology in Focus for Morgan Lewis's Incoming Chair
Diversity and Technology in Focus for Morgan Lewis's Incoming Chair
PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO DATA BREACHES IN AN ERA OF CYBER INSECURITY
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
A Moment of Simple Justice - Revenge Porn
Why Cyber Security?
How Fenwick Partners Caught the Tech Wave
How is Graphene Currently Used and What is the Hope for the Future?
What is Graphene? Fenwick Patent Attorney Has the Answer
Two Tips for Inventors Filing Patent Applications
Are Criminal Laws the Right Response to Revenge Porn?
Why Law Firms Are Starting to Think Like Media Companies
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more
The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not...more
Last week, what is described as "a broad coalition" representing patent holders and inventors sent a letter to Representatives Bob Goodlatte (VA, 6th) and John Conyers (MI, 13th), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of...more
(January 13, 2015) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,436,135 (“the ’135 patent”) . ...more
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., U.S. No. 13-854 (Jan. 20, 2015) -
Answering the long debated question of what deference the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should give in reviewing district court...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more
On December 19, 2014, the magistrate recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin defendant from maintaining a later-filed action in Massachusetts be granted, and ordered that defendant’s motion to transfer be denied....more
Although Sequenom has settled its dispute over U.S. Patent 6,258,540 with some parties, its case against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. remains active. Thus, we all should be waiting with bated breath to see whether the Federal...more
Guidance published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on December 16, 2014 indicates a slight softening in its position regarding patentable subject matter. The patent community has been hard hit in the last few...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics in 2013, Myriad (paradoxically to those either not paying attention or who over interpreted the scope of the Court's holding in its opinion) filed...more
Recently, the Supreme Court changed the standard of review the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing district court claim construction decisions in patent cases. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the standard of review of factual findings by the trial court in construing patent claims. The Court ruled that factual findings in the context of...more
The disputed technology relates to user interface systems and methods for a vehicle. The parties agreed during oral argument that construction of the term “page” is the only matter at issue for determining whether a...more
Since the Federal and Supreme Court rulings in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., we have seen some issued patents invalidated on the grounds of patent-ineligible subject matter directed to an...more
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion issues. The court considers terms from six patents relating to optical sensor circuit modules....more
RAND Commitment Relevant to Damages -
In ERICSSON, INC. v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, and -1633, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s judgment...more
Last Friday in a note to subscribers, I predicted, tongue-in-cheek, an 80% probability that #AliceStorm would continue this morning. Some days I’m glad to wrong. Today is one of those days. Yes, a patent eligibility decision...more
On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Case No. 13-854), which changed the level of deference the Federal Circuit must show to district court claim...more
On Jan. 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision setting forth a new standard for appellate review of a district court’s claim construction ruling. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op., 574...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES -
Akin Gump Wins Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement -
Akin Gump obtained a significant victory on summary judgment for HTC and AT&T in a patent infringement case against Adaptix, Inc., an...more
This week, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must apply a deferential “clear error” standard of review to any finding of fact underlying a district court’s...more
In its October 2014 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two trademark cases. Both cases have practical significance for trademark litigants because they have the potential to change the way parties approach...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S.__ (2015), holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error" standard when...more
Supreme Court Building #3It has escaped almost no one's notice that the Supreme Court has spent the past decade or so being much more involved in patent law than in preceding twenty years. Evident but perhaps less discussed...more
Find a Science, Computers & Technology Author »
Back to Top