Patent-in-Suit

News & Analysis as of

IP Newsflash - December 2014

Federal Circuit Vacates Lower Court’s Obviousness Finding Based on Incorrect Application of Inherency Doctrine - In Par Pharmaceutical, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness ruling by the district court, finding...more

Pyrrhic Victory: IPR Petition Denied Because Claims Indefinite

Patent Owner won a Pyrrhic victory in Facebook v. TLI Communications, IPR2014-00566, wherein the Board denied the Petition, but for a reason that calls into question the future viability of the patent-in-suit. Namely, the...more

Judge Román stays case because of IPRs based on parties’ joint request.

CDx Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc. et al. Case Number: 7:13-cv-05669-NSR - Judge Román stayed the litigation after the PTAB instituted IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00639 and IPR2014-00641 for...more

Judge McMahon stays case because of IPR, based on parties’ joint request.

Hockeyline, Inc. v. Stats LLC Case Number: 2:13-cv-01446-CM Judge McMahon, following the parties’ joint motion after the PTAB instituted IPR Case No. IPR2014-00510 for the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit’s Post-Alice Eligibility Analysis of Business Methods

The Federal Circuit in Ultramercial, Inc. v. WildTangent, Inc., held that an “entrepreneurial” multi-step process for distributing copyrighted media products over the Internet to consumers is not patent-eligible under 35...more

Apple Motion to Stay Litigation Pending an IPR Is Denied by the District Court for the Northern District of California

In the matter pending in the Northern District of California, Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Apple moved to stay the litigation pending inter partes review of the patent-in-suit. On October 9, 2013, plaintiff Aylus...more

Third Time Is the Charm for WildTangent Challenge of Patent Eligibility of Ultramercial Patent

In its third opinion reviewing the same district court decision, the Federal Circuit this time affirmed the district court’s grant of WildTangent’s motion to dismiss Ultramercial’s patent infringement complaint because the...more

Ultramercial Finally Strikes Out at the Federal Circuit

In its most recent decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, the Federal Circuit finally concluded that the claims-at-issue do not cover patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This comes after two prior...more

United Therapeutics Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: UTC claimed that Sandoz induced infringement of the ’007 patent by instructing physicians to dilute its product for use intravenously. The asserted claim required a particular...more

Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Par Pharm., Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The one asserted claim in the ’031 patent, claim 7, depends from non-asserted independent claim 1. Claim 7 narrows claim 1 by limiting it to a specific delivery method and requires...more

Considerations in Obtaining Advice of Counsel to Rebut a Claim of Willfulness

In 2007, the willfulness inquiry changed significantly with the Federal Circuit’s seminal decision, In re Seagate. In addition to establishing a new twoprong test for willful infringement, the Federal Circuit in Seagate...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal Where Co-Owner of Patent Refuses to Join Suit

The Federal Circuit recently denied en banc review of its prior decision dismissing a patent infringement suit where a co-owner of the patent-in-suit refused to join the case voluntarily and the court held that it could not...more

Patent Law Developments: Indefiniteness and Damages

Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. is the first case interpreting the general (and highly criticized) standard...more

Patent Infringement Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Standing Where Co-Inventor Had Not Assigned Rights to Plaintiff

Plaintiffs Alpha One Transporter, Inc. and American Heavy Moving and Rigging, Inc. (collectively "Alpha One") filed a complaint against Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Perkins Motor Transport, Inc. ("Perkins"). Perkins...more

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Second Anniversary: Reflections and Strategies For The Years Ahead

What a difference two years can make. In 2012, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) created new proceedings to challenge the validity of claims in issued patents. These proceedings are administered by the United States...more

Conclusory statements about the relevance of foreign prosecution histories do not support motion to compel

Defendant Ablexis requested that the court compel the production of documents associated with the prosecution of non-U.S. patent applications related to the patent-in-suit. The court said that a defendant’s statement that the...more

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC (D.N.J.)

The defendants include generic ANDA applicants (the “generic defendants”) and the API manufacturer, Johnson Matthey, Inc. and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials (collectively “JM”). Six summary judgment motions were...more

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Hoffman-La Roche (“Roche”) appeals from the decision of the district court granting defendants summary judgment of invalidity as to claims 1-8 of the ’634 patent and claims 1-10 of the ’957 patent. The asserted claims...more

Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Case Name: Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2014) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Prost, J.; Concurrence-in-part and Dissent by Dyk, J.; Dissent by...more

Motion to Stay Pending CBM Review Granted Where Non-Practicing Entity Did Not Seek Preliminary Injunction

Boku, Inc. ("Boku") filed a CBM petition with the PTAB seeking review of the patentability of Plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168 (the "'168 patent"). The petition challenged all claims of the '168 patent on grounds that...more

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Case Name: Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10710 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna and Chen presiding; Opinion by Prost, C.J.; Dissent-in-part by Chen,...more

Patent Hold-Up or Patent Hold-Out? Judge Essex Adds His Voice to the SEP-FRAND Debate

Administrative Law Judge Essex recently issued the public version of his Initial Determination in ITC investigation No. 337-TA-868, ruling that the respondents are precluded from relying on the defense that the patent holder...more

Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. (Fed Cir)

Case Name: Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., Nos. 2013-1658, -1662, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5879 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2014) (Circuit Judges Newman, Dyk, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Moore, J.; Dissent-in-part by Dyk) (appeal...more

Takeda Pharma. Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmas. USA, Inc. (Fed Cir)

Case Name: Takeda Pharma. Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmas. USA, Inc., No. 2013-1406, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3072 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2014) (Circuit Judges Prost, Plager, and Chen presiding; Opinion by Prost, J.) (appeal from D.N.J.,...more

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case Nos. 08-627-LPS, 11-81-LPS, 09-143-LPS, 10-285-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41865 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2014) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and...more

36 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2