In This Issue:

*News from the Bench

- Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling on Gene Patentability: Natural DNA “No”/ cDNA “Yes”

- CAFC Reverses Denial of Permanent Injunction Based on Perceived Future Reputational Damage, Despite Lack of Evidence of Lost Sales or Market Share

- Supreme Court Rules on Pay-for-Delay Agreements

- Patent Office’s First AIA Business Method Patent Review Unravels a $391 Million Damages Award

- When Public Health Considerations Can Tip the Balance Away from a Permanent Injunction

- Fed Circuit Can Hear Separate Appeals on Patent Infringement Liability Determinations

* Patent Notes

- State Legislation to Curtail Patent Troll Litigation-- Is Vermont onto Something?

*Litigation Wins:

- King & Spalding Team Secures Victory for Client FDS in Copyright/Trade Dress Dispute; King & Spalding Team Wins Summary Judgment Motion of Non-Infringement for Nokia Against Nazomi Communications

*Thought Leadership: IP Partner Katie McCarthy to Speak at the Trademark Aesthetic Functionality at the PLI IP Institute in September.

*In the Press: Two King & Spalding IP Attorneys Author Patent Troll Article in IP Magazine

- Excerpt from State Legislation to Curtail Patent Troll Litigation-- Is Vermont onto Something?

The excesses of patent troll litigation in the past few years have galvanized the business community on the need for reform in this area. What started out as a manageable nuisance several years ago (about 19% of patent infringement actions in 2006 were brought by patent assertion entities (PAE’s), or so called patent trolls) has become a serious threat to industry and to the integrity of the patent system. An astonishing 62 percent of patent litigation actions brought in 2012 (2921 of the total 4,701 patent suits filed) were attributable to patent trolls, with a price tag for legal fees and license fee settlements estimated between $11 and $39 billion in 2012.