Power Probe Grp., Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corp., 21-cv-00332 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2023) While it is accepted that filing an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint rendering it without legal effect, a defendant...more
On January 10, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc’s (“Bytemark”) motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, asserting two new patents after the prior...more
We have previously reported on AbbVie’s first and second wave suits against Alvotech hf. (Alvotech) in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an adalimumab biosimilar. In the second wave suit, on December 21, 2021,...more
District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle - In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more
BOT M8 LLC v. SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA - Before Dyk, Linn, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: The district court’s conclusion that...more
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because...more
DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC. v. VETERINARY ORTHOPEDIC IMPLANT, INC. Before Prost, Clevenger, and Dyk. Appeal from the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Internal efforts to maintain confidentiality are not enough...more
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos....more
This week, in the Immunex v. Samsung Bioepis BPCIA litigation regarding ETICOVO (etanercept-ykro), Samsung Bioepis’s biosimilar of ENBREL, the New Jersey district court entered a Consent Injunction Order that prohibits...more
On December 5, 2019, Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas denied the defendant Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.’s (“Diebold”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc. et al.,...more
Addressing the application of the relation-back doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit, finding that damages were available because the amended complaint that asserted new patents related...more
This summer, the District of Utah dismissed Simio’s lawsuit against Flexsim Software, finding that the asserted patent was not patent eligible under Section 101. Simio responded by asking the court to vacate its judgment or,...more
Reaffirming that the plaintiff in a patent case has the burden of establishing that venue is proper, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal. The Court ultimately denied the...more
ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Patent infringement claims in an amended complaint may relate...more
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) panel has determined that emailing a proposed amended complaint is not “service of a complaint” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). On January 23, 2018, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc....more
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY - Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must...more
The DTSA standing alone provides significant recourse for trade secret owners who have fallen victim to trade secret theft. Apart from the protection provided by the DTSA itself, however, the statute also allows trade secret...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal of a complaint for failing to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), finding error in the district court’s use of judicial notice to do fact-finding outside the...more
Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Appeal No. 2018-1028 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2019) In an appeal from a district court dismissal of a case seeking correction of inventorship, the Federal Circuit reversed...more
Below is an update on recent developments in several litigations involving biosimilar products. Amgen v. Sandoz (filgrastim, pegfilgrastim): As we previously reported, the district court granted summary judgment of...more
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1452 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) - In these two, published, precedential orders...more
After having its complaint for patent infringement dismissed for failure to state a claim and being denied its request to file an amended complaint in the Middle District of Georgia, Disc Disease Solutions turned to the...more
On October 26, 2017, District Judge Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiff Olaf Soot Design, LLC (“OSD”) leave to amend its June 25, 2015 Complaint against Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist, Inc. (collectively,...more