Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Author

Latest Publications

Aaron Bowling

Medtronic v. MFV — Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses Federal Circuit: Holding Patentees Always Bear the Burden of Proving Infringement

Jan. 23, 2014 — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures (previously listed as Medtronic v. Boston Scientific), holding that the burden of proving…more

Burden of Proof, Infringement, Medtronic v Boston Scientific, Medtronics, Patent Infringement

See All Updates »

Erin Bryan

FTC v. Actavis Decision Offers Guidance to Drug Manufacturers

June 18, 2013 – The Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision yesterday in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., holding pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust review, but are not presumptively unlawful. The decision was authored by…more

Actavis Inc., Competition, FTC, FTC v Actavis, Generic Drugs

See All Updates »

Marc Cooperman

Supreme Court Debates Laches Defense — Change Is Coming

Jan. 22, 2014 — In an energetic oral argument on Jan. 21 that would have made first-year law students cringe, the Supreme Court debated the proper role of laches as a defense against the backdrops of statutory language versus…more

Copyright, Equitable Relief, Laches, MGM, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

John Fleming

Pacific Coast Marine Decision Confirms Application of Prosecution History Estoppel to Designs

The Federal Circuit handed down a 3-0 decision on Jan. 8, 2014, in Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Limited v. Malibu Boats, LLC et al., recognizing that the concept of prosecution history estoppel applies to design patents. The…more

Design Patent, Estoppel, Patent Applications, Patent Infringement, Patents

See All Updates »

R. Gregory Israelsen

Intellectual Property Alert: The Federal Circuit Upholds Cybor’s Rule that Claim Construction Is Subject to De Novo Appellate Review

Feb. 24, 2014 — On Friday, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed 6–4 in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., that its holding in Cybor Corp v. FAS Technologies is still good law. In short, patent…more

Claim Construction, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patents, Philips Electronics

See All Updates »

John Iwanicki

The USPTO Announces New Guidelines for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101 in View of Myriad, Prometheus and Chakrabarty

March 10, 2014 – On March 4, 2014, the United States Patent & Trademark Office issued guidelines for the examination of “all claims (i.e., machine, composition, manufacture and process claims) reciting or involving laws of…more

AMP v Myriad, Mayo v. Prometheus, Patent Applications, Patent Litigation, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

See All Updates »

Craig Kronenthal

Today's General Counsel - Three Ways to Challenge a Patent

An inters party review (IPR) is a newly established mechanism for challenging patent validity through an evidentiary process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent Trademark…more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Christopher McKee

Standard For Amending Claims In IPR May Need To Change

The Idle Free decision denied the patent owner’s motion to amend claims on the ground that the patent owner had not proven the patentability of the claims over the prior art. Remarkably, the decision makes no reference to the…more

Intellectual Property Litigation, Motion to Amend, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Aseet Patel

7 Intellectual Property Mistakes Startup Entrepreneurs Often Make

What’s the biggest mistake startup entrepreneurs make with respect to their intellectual property, and what can they do to fix it? That’s the question we recently put to IP attorneys writing on JD Supra, knowing that the…more

Business Formation, Copyright, First-to-File, Legal Perspectives, Patents

See All Updates »

H. Wayne Porter

Today's General Counsel - Three Ways to Challenge a Patent

An inters party review (IPR) is a newly established mechanism for challenging patent validity through an evidentiary process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent Trademark…more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Paul Rivard

Intellectual Property Alert: En Banc Federal Circuit to Revisit Cybor No-Deference Rule

September 16, 2013 – The Federal Circuit heard arguments on Friday in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America. In March, the court granted a petition for rehearing en banc to reconsider its 1998 ruling…more

Agency Deference, Appeals, Claim Construction, Standard of Review, Trial de Novo

See All Updates »

Charles Shifley

Supreme Court Justice Characterizes Alice v. CLS Bank as Being on the Idea of “Solvency,” or “Computer, Stop;” While All Justices Search Among King Tut, Scylla, Charybdis and Archimedes for Inspiration

April 2, 2014 — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 31 in Alice v. CLS Bank, the much anticipated case concerning whether inventions executed on computers are patent eligible subject matter under the “abstract…more

CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Patent Litigation, Patents, SCOTUS

See All Updates »

Bradley Wright

Developments in Patent Law 2013; The D.C. Bar Year in Review

In this article: - Patentability, Validity, and Procurement of Patents - Interpretation and Infringement of Patents - Enforcement of Patents - Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court - Excerpt from…more

AMP v Myriad, Apple, Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, CLS Bank v Alice Corp

See All Updates »

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.