News & Analysis as of

Disclosure Requirements Patent Litigation

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Beyond the 100 Mile Rule: Court of Appeal Affirms District Court’s Power to Compel Attendance of Distant Witnesses and Unveil...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

What is the range of a federal district court’s power to compel a nonparty’s attendance at a hearing? Every practicing litigator knows the answer—“within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly...more

Haug Partners LLP

Ordinary (Artificial) Intelligence in the Art

Haug Partners LLP on

Given their potential to revolutionize many aspects of legal practice and intellectual property, artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools have become a mainstay in the legal space. While AI has its benefits, it also carries...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Fixing Unintentional Duty of Disclosure and Candor Issues Through Supplemental Examination

A significant procedure for patent owners, Supplemental Examination, was established in the 2012 America Invents Act when Congress determined there should be a proceeding to turn events that in the past could lead to...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Navigating the Complexities of Litigation Funding Discovery

For those who have not had a chance to attend one of our CLE presentations on Litigation Funding Disclosure, this IAM article provides a glimpse of the complex landscape for defendants seeking discovery on litigation funding...more

Linda Liu & Partners

Whether a less performant technical solution disclosed in the evidence gives opposite technical teaching | Administrative Lawsuit...

Linda Liu & Partners on

Judgment Gist - Evidence 5 discloses that “the process according to the invention forms a product which rigidifies far better than alternative treatments, for instance the use of water swellable, water swellable polymers...more

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC

Amgen is Not the End of Chemical Innovation

Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more

McCarter & English, LLP

Patent Office Cancels Patents for Inadequate Voluntary Disclosure in IPRs

Inter partes reviews (IPRs) are litigation-like procedures held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that are used to challenge the validity of patents. Typically,...more

Haug Partners LLP

Disclosure of Third-Party Funding Documents in Patent Litigation: A Shift Towards Greater Transparency in Patent Ownership and...

Haug Partners LLP on

Third-party litigation financing (TPLF) is an arrangement by which plaintiffs finance litigation costs through a non-party, typically a private firm that obtain funds from other investors. The commercial goal for a funder is...more

Linda Liu & Partners

Thoughts on Strategy for Arguing against Objection of Lacking Essential Technical Features

Linda Liu & Partners on

I Introduction - Under Rule 20.2 of the Implementation Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law, “The independent claim shall outline the technical solution of an invention or utility model and state the essential technical...more

Linda Liu & Partners

Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation

Linda Liu & Partners on

When construing the patent claims to determine patent infringement in China, the principle of equivalence will be applied, that is, the protection scope of a patent right is not only determined by the technical features...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Rejects Patentee’s Attempt to Skirt Local Patent Rules in Duplicative Litigation

On September 7, in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., a Federal Circuit panel affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision dismissing a patent infringement action as duplicative of a co-pending, earlier-filed action. ...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Delaware Judge Enforces Patent Case Disclosure Requirements

Womble Bond Dickinson on

​​​​​​​The District of Delaware has recently instituted several requirements in patent cases, many in response to the overwhelming caseload in part due to a judicial vacancy. In addition to the specific patent standing orders...more

Kidon IP

Disclosures and Enforceability of Standard-Essential Patents: An Overview

Kidon IP on

I am very pleased that my chapter comparing how three different courts approach IPR disclosure obligations under ETSI has been published by Wolters Kluwer in their 2021 Licensing Update. My chapter discusses how antitrust...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Inventions Not Made Under Employment Agreement

McDermott Will & Emery on

Applying a “middle ground” standard of review, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision denying a company’s request for a declaratory judgment asking a former employee to assign...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

No Fishing Allowed: Discovery of Litigation Funding Requires Articulation of Relevance Beyond Speculation

A recent Memorandum Order from the District of Delaware edified the protections courts tend to give discovery concerning litigation funding. Because Defendant AT&T failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the specific...more

Burr & Forman

Northern District of California's Revised Patent Local Rules Require Early Disclosure of Damages Information

Burr & Forman on

Last month, the Northern District of California revised its Patent Local Rules by adding requirements for early disclosure of damages information. Because the Northern District of California has been a national driving force...more

Hogan Lovells

Show me the Money: New rules in Northern California call for early disclosure of damages in Patent Litigation

Hogan Lovells on

Recently, the District Court for the Northern District of California updated is Local Patent Rules.  Early disclosure of financial information regarding damages is one change that has attracted some attention. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Petition in Amgen v. Sandoz

The Federal Circuit today denied the petitions for rehearing by the panel and rehearing by the en banc Court filed by both parties in Amgen v. Sandoz. Amgen had petitioned for rehearing on the panel's decision that the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amgen v. Sandoz – Did the Federal Circuit Just Doom the New Biosimilar Approval Pathway?

Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in 2009 in an effort to bring biosimilar drug products to market. The goal was for the BPCIA to mimic for biologic drugs the Hatch-Waxman statute...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amgen v. Sandoz Update -- En Banc Rehearing Petitions Filed

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Circuit decided the Amgen v. Sandoz appeal in a case of first impression regarding the interpretation of the disclosure and notice provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act...more

Mintz - ML Strategies

Biosimilars, the BPCIA, and Amgen v. Sandoz: The Federal Circuit’s First Attempt To Make Sense of “A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery...

Mintz - ML Strategies on

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a key decision regarding the meaning of various provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). See Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Fed. Cir. Case No....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Circuit Decides Amgen v. Sandoz (in an opinion that will make neither party happy)

In a seriously fractured decision, the Federal Circuit construed the provisions of the Biologics Price Control and Innovation Act (BPCIA) today in Amgen v. Sandoz. In doing so, the Court limited the information available to...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Therasense Revisited: In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation

In the United States, patent applicants and their counsel owe a duty of candor and good faith to the Patent Office. This duty is breached when the applicant or its counsel knowingly fails to disclose material prior art...more

24 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide