Competitor or Collaborator? What UpCounsel's Growth Means for BigLaw
Polsinelli Podcasts - Hedge Funds Now Using IPR Challenges
MacEwen on BigLaw's 'Hollow Middle', Shaky Vereins & Dentons in China
Special Report: The Hot-ish Swag at LegalTech New York 2015
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
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?
Yesterday, Sen. Christopher Coons (D-DE), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the "Support Technology and Research for Our Nation's Growth (STRONG) Patents Act of 2015." What is unique about...more
In This Issue:
- Tips for Developing a Cost-Effective Foreign Patent Strategy
- Supreme Court Holds that Trademark Tacking Should be Decided by a Jury in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
Federal courts have continued to wrestle with the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). This is...more
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in California at the time the complaint was filed. Its current address is in New York. Defendant is an Ohio LLC with its principal place of business in...more
Last year promised significant changes in Canadian IP law; some of which will be realized in 2015. As the first quarter draws to a close, this year’s trends in IP law are emerging. Canada’s international trade negotiations...more
Patent exhaustion, or "the first sale doctrine," requires that the initial authorized sale of a patented item by a patent owner or licensee, terminates their ability to subsequently use their patent rights against that item....more
Judge Rya W. Zobel’s recent decision denying a set of Google’s summary judgment motions has cleared the way for trial. Skyhook initially sued Google for infringement of thirteen patents. Currently, eight patents remain at...more
Four Mile Bay, LLC recently sued Zimmer Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The complaint alleges that Zimmer Holdings’ hip implants, such as the “Trabecular Metal Primary...more
Reviewing a final written decision of U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding application claims unpatentable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in concluding that...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES -
Federal Circuit Throws Out $2 Million Award to Nvidia and Sony -
Despite the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness decision making it easier to award attorneys’ fees, the Federal Circuit has...more
In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s interpretation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute as permitting the USPTO to charge “Applicant Delay” when an Information Disclosure Statement...more
More Deference to District Courts in Claim Construction -
In TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC., No. 13-854, the Supreme Court held that factual findings underpinning claim construction rulings are reviewed...more
In yet another case in the District of Connecticut, Protegrity has seen its claims for indirect and willful infringement dismissed because, according to the court, its complaint did not plead sufficient facts. District Judge...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.
Shire LLC v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-01454; filed February 25, 2015 in the District Court of...more
The February issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to MarketTM newsletter provides takeaways from the Supreme Court's Hana Financial decision, identifies a new anti-counterfeiting tool for owners of Canadian trademarks and...more
Case Name: Civ. No. 3:14-cv-422-HEH, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146528 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2014) (Hudson, J.) (Where patent holder disclaims patent and asks FDA to delist, but patent remains in Orange Book, declaratory judgment...more
The answer likely is “no” according to a recent decision from a federal court in San Francisco. The plaintiff in that case, a data storage company, alleged that a competitor misappropriated its trade secrets by illegally...more
Background – Multiple Petitions -
Multiple Petition Filings in PTAB Trials (IPR/PGR/CBM) -
•The statutes for IPR, PGR and CBM do not provide many limits on filing of petitions
–Numerous patents have been...more
When the Innovation Act first was introduced, I was skeptical of the proposed obviousness-type double patenting statute. I did not understand why some thought that patents that fall under the First-Inventor-To-File provisions...more
Interim Guidance: Summaries of Patent Eligibility Cases -
The Interim Guidance provides succinct summaries of various Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. As explained by the Office at the January 21, 2015...more
Barco filed a patent infringement action in September 2011 against Defendants Eizo Nanao Corporation and Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc. ("Eizo"), alleging that Eizo infringed various claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,639,849 (the...more
Case Name: Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Civ. No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150283 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) (Sleet, J.) (When a POSA would have to undertake significant guesswork to vary the parameters of...more
It is a certainty that no matter what action is taken (by an individual, a group, or especially a legislative body) that there will be unintended consequences. It is also true that those unintended consequences, like the...more
The U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided further guidance as to what new matter may properly be raised during oral argument, explaining that parties may not present new...more
The United States Supreme Court, clarifying the proper standard of review of factual findings arising during a court’s construction of patent claims, held that such “evidentiary underpinnings” should be reviewed for clear...more
Find a Science, Computers & Technology Author »
Back to Top