Bryan Beel

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court Opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Supreme Court held that "the 'first sale' doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad." Here, Kirtsaeng bought copies of a book made abroad under license from John Wiley & Sons, imported the books…more

| Intellectual Property
Calhoun v U.S.

Statement of Justice Sotomayor

I write to dispel any doubt whether the Court’s denial of certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor’s racially charged remark. It should not…more

| Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
WASAVP v State of Washington

Washington Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of I-1183

This court was asked to determine whether Initiative 1183 (I-1183) violates the single-subject and subject-in-title rules found in article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. I-1183 removes the State from the…more

| Constitutional Law
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US...

First Circuit Opinion in Massachusetts v US DHHS

The First Circuit affirmed the following lower court judgment: "The Department of Justice defended DOMA in the district court but, on July 8, 2010, that court found section 3 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection…more

| Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Kappos v Hyatt

Kappos v Hyatt

There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding beyond those already presentin the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If new evidence is…more

| Intellectual Property
Mayo Collaborative Services v...

Supreme Court Opinion in Mayo v Prometheus

Because the laws of nature recited by Prometheus’ patent claims—the relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a thiopurine drug dosage will prove ineffective or cause…more

| Intellectual Property
Benedict v Super Bakery

Federal Circuit Decision Affirming Trademark Cancellation

Federal Circuit affirmed cancellation of the plaintiff's trademark registration as a sanction for repeated failure to provide requested discovery and comply with TTAB procedures. "Default judgment may be warranted in cases of…more

| Intellectual Property
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei...

Mondis v Chimei Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court is Mondis Technology, Ltd.?s (“Mondis”) motion for supplemental damages for 2011 sales and for an ongoing royalty rate. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court GRANTS-in-part and DENIES-in-part Mondis's motion. The Court awards…more

| Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v....

Federal Circuit's Classen Ruling on Section 101 Patent Eligibility

The Federal Circuit reconsidered its decision in Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen Idec after its first decision was vacated by the Supreme Court in view of Bilski. On remand, the Federal Circuit (Rader + Newman) found 2 of 3…more

| Intellectual Property
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited...

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership: Supreme Court Decision

In asserting patent invalidity as a defense to an infringement action, an alleged infringer must contend with §282 of the Patent Act of 1952 (Act), under which “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of…more

| Intellectual Property

Global-Tech v. SEB: Supreme Court on induced patent infringement

The Supreme Court decided Global-Tech v. SEB to review the law of induced patent infringement. The Court's holdings: 1) Induced infringement under §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent…more

| Intellectual Property
McKesson Techs v. Epic Systems

Federal Circuit opinion in McKesson Techs v. Epic Systems 10-1291

Summary paragraph: McKesson Technologies Inc. (“McKesson”) appeals the district court’s grant of Epic Systems Corporation’s (“Epic”) renewed motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-18 of…more

| Intellectual Property

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.