Science, Computers & Technology Intellectual Property Civil Procedure

Read Science, Computers & Technology updates, news, alerts, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc.

Case Name: Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2015-2063, -2064, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8782 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2016) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Mayer, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Andrews, J.)...more

PTAB Institution Decision Does Not Shift Burden from the Patent Challenger to the Patentee

The Federal Circuit previously clarified that a petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc. On July 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit’s In re...more

Intendis GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA

Case Name: Intendis GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 822 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016) (Circuit Judges Prost, Moore, and Taranto presiding; Opinion by Moore, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Robinson, J.) - Drug...more

Indirect Patent Infringement Can Be Based on Willful Blindness and Circumstantial Evidence

In a case remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States “for further consideration in light of Commil” (IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 6), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated its prior decision of...more

District Court Orders Production of Bills from Expert Witnesses But Permits Redaction of Narrative Statements in Bills

In this patent infringement action, the defendant, Ericsson moved to compel the plaintiff, TCL, to produce bills and invoices for worked performed by TCL's expert witnesses. TCL sought to redact the bills and invoices to...more

Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Burwell

Case Name: Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Burwell, No. 15-5166, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10095 (D.C. Cir. June 3, 2016) (Circuit Judges Griffith, Cavanaugh, and Wilkins presiding; Opinion by Griffith) (Appeal from D.D.C., Lamberth,...more

Courts Answer Key Questions Over the Reach of the BPCIA

Since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was signed into law in 2010, only a small handful of abbreviated Biologics Licensing Applications (“aBLAs”) have been filed and of those the FDA has...more

PTO Cannot Raise & Decide Unpatentability Theories Never Presented by the Petitioner

In In re Magnum Tools International, Ltd., [2015-1300] (July 25, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 were invalid for obviousness. The Federal...more

LED Dispute Blazes Through Summary Judgment

A recent decision from Judge Stearns sheds new light on a dispute between Lexington Luminance (“Lexington”) and Google over LED technology. The dispute began in November, 2012, when Lexington accused Google of infringing...more

Supreme Court Reinvigorates Effectiveness of Obtaining an Opinion of Counsel to Defend against Potential Enhanced Damages for...

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court again reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit—the Circuit specially designated to hear all patent appeals—this time, in articulating the test for determining whether to award...more

Software Inventions See More Help in Bascom Decision

Since the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, patent examiners and the courts have been working to better define patent eligibility. Following closely on the heels of their Enfish, LLC, v. Microsoft...more

En Banc CAFC Requires UCC Sale For On Sale Bar

In an en banc decision issued in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that in order for a commercial transaction to trigger the on-sale bar of § 35 USC 102(b), it must “bear the general...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

Subsequent Employment Agreement Assigning Inventor's Intellectual Property Rights Does not Defeat Standing for Inventions Created...

The plaintiff, Odyssey Wireless ("Odyssey") filed four separate actions for patent infringement against Defendants Apple, Samsung, LG, and Motorola, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,393; 8,199,837; 8,576,940;...more

Federal Circuit: A Biosimilar Applicant Must Provide Notice of Intent to Market a Biosimilar Product, No Exceptions

On July 5, 2016, in Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the Federal Circuit again held that a biosimilar applicant must provide its biologic competitor with 180 days’ notice of intent to commercially market a biosimilar product....more

Amgen v. Apotex: District Court Decides that the ’138 Patent is Not Invalid on Some Grounds; Enablement is Still an Open Issue

As we previously reported, on July 5, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) until it...more

Sale of Manufacturing Services Does Not Trigger On Sale Bar Under Pre-AIA §102

In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., [2014-1469, 2014,1504] (July 11, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 were invalid under the on-sale bar...more

Recent Decision in Halo Requires Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Motion on Willfulness

In a multi-district litigation, the district court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the issue of willful infringement. After the Supreme Court's decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse...more

ANDA Update - Volume 2, Number 2

180-Day Notice Period for Biosimilar Approval Is Always Mandatory and Enforceable by Injunction - Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) - A year after analyzing the patent dance and notice...more

Lowered Risk for Inventors Who Use Contract Product Development or Manufacturing

On July 11, in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a contract manufacturer's sale of manufacturing services to an inventor did not constitute a commercial sale of the patented invention for...more

I Win? No Fair!

In SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v, Deca International Corp., [2016-1325, 2016,1326] (July 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit granted Deca’s motion to dismiss SkyHawke’s appeal of a PTAB Decision in a reexamination on the grounds...more

A Different Route: Challenging Orange Book Patents Via Inter Partes Review

Since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2012, and the corresponding implementation of the inter partes review (IPR) process, patent challengers have been utilizing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as an...more

Biosimilar “Patent Dance” Does Not Permit Sidestepping of 180-Day Notice

On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) unanimously ruled in Amgen v. Apotex that biosimilar makers must provide brand-name rivals with a 180-day notice only after receipt of...more

District Court Permits Survey Evidence to Support Lost Profits Damage Theory

The defendants', Roland DGA Corporation and Roland DG Corporation (collectively "Roland"), filed a motion for summary judgment against plaintiff, Gerber Scientific International, Inc. ("Gerber") regarding Gerber's claims for...more

Janssen Seeks Injunction Against Remicade Biosimilar Based On Cell Culture Patent

In a complaint filed June 14, 2016, Janssen Biotech Inc. seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Celltrion and Hospira from selling the biosimilar version of Remicade® (infliximab) that received FDA approval April 2016,...more

3,812 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 153

Follow Science, Computers & Technology Updates on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×