News & Analysis as of

Patents

Can Renting Be a Sale After Importation?

by Jones Day on

We previously wrote about the ITC’s determination in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 that renting accused products after importation does...more

How Does the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Incontinence Products Spill Over into Fashion?

On March 21, 2017 the Supreme Court issued a monumental holding removing the availability of laches as a defense in a claim for damages under patent infringement. The case changes decades of legal precedent, and adopts...more

Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington (Fed. Cir. 2017)

It has been the experience of more than a few first-year law students taking Civil Procedure I that the only correct answer to a complex procedural problem is that there is no way for a plaintiff to bring suit. The student...more

Novartis AG, LTS et al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Prior Judicial Opinions Don’t Bind the PTAB

After Novartis’ patents were found nonobvious by the Fed. Cir., affirming the Delaware District Court, defendant Noven filed for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6316023 and 6335031, on rivastigmine and an...more

Issue Preclusion: Patent Owner Does Not Get a Do Over to Assert the Claims Against Similar Products

In Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., [2016-1982] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933. In prior litigation in which Phil-Insul asserted the...more

Judge Andrews Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Certain Patent Counterclaims after Finding the Subject Patents Claim Abstract...

by Fox Rothschild LLP on

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in D&M Holdings Inc. et al. v. Sonos, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-141-RGA (D.Del. April 18, 2017), the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s...more

IPR Estoppel: Ripe for Gamesmanship?

In Douglas Dynamics LLC, v. Meyer Products LLC, [14-cv-886-jdp] (D. Wisc. Document # 68 April 18. 2017), the district court considered the scope of estoppel after an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The Court identified three...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part II - April 2017#2

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al. v Janssen Oncology, Inc. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00853;...more

Is there a legislative fix for biotech patents?

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

By some accounts, we have entered a golden age for innovation in personalised medicine. Through scientific advancements in the study of genetic coding and molecular analysis, it is now possible to screen an individual for...more

Just How Predictable Must the Invention Be to Lose Patent Protection? Depends on the Inventive Concept

by Bennett Jones LLP on

Only a true invention can be patented; a patent claim to an invention is not valid if the invention was obvious. Assessing obviousness can be thought of as bridging the gap between two cliffs: on one side is the existing...more

PTAB Weighs Five Factors in Discretionary Denial of Xactware’s Second IPR Petition

The PTAB weighed five factors in its discretionary denial of a second IPR petition filed by the same petitioner in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Tech., Inc., IPR2017-00034, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. April 13, 2017)....more

Rules and Practice Tips Regarding Official Notice at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

What is Official Notice? - MPEP §2103(VI) states that when a rejection is imposed, the “Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them.” Examiners commonly satisfy this...more

Little Words That Can Make a Big Difference: i.e. Versus e.g.

The difference between “i.e.” (id est, “that is”) and “e.g.” (exempli gratia, “for example”) comes up in patent cases from time to time. While the difference is not always clear to some practitioners, it is clear to the...more

Pharmaceutical Compound Nonobvious Absent Evidence Suggesting Specific Modification to Prior Art Compound

by Jones Day on

The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2016-00204, upholding the validity of claims 1–13 of Patent RE38,551 E (“the ’551 patent”), which covers the antiepileptic drug VIMPAT® (lacosamide)....more

Angiomax Patents Limited To Example

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., the Federal Circuit construed composition claims of two Angiomax patents as requiring the recited “batches” to be made by a specific “efficient mixing” process illustrated in one of the...more

Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Can a prior art reference that does not contain a teaching sufficient enough to allow it to be used in an obviousness combination nevertheless be used as a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine? ...more

SAS Urges High Court to Restore Balance to AIA Post-Grant Framework

by Jones Day on

Who makes the country’s patent laws—Congress, or the Patent Office? A recent petition for certiorari filed by SAS Institute, Inc.—represented by a team of Jones Day lawyers—asks the Supreme Court to decide that question in...more

Fed Circ Affirms Conflicting Invalidity Determinations from District Court and PTAB

by Jones Day on

As we have previously discussed on this blog, when considering an issue of patentability such as definiteness under section 112, the PTAB and a district court may properly reach opposite conclusions. In Tinnus Enterprises LLC...more

Federal Circuit Reverses-in-Part PTAB’s IPR Decisions for Wasica’s Tire Pressure Monitoring Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more

Failure of Licensee to Mark May Upend $15.7 Million Damage Award

In Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics CO., LTD., [2016-1729] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL),...more

Fast Track Examination in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Track One Prioritized Examination - Track One examination allows an applicant to pay for prioritized examination and to receive a final disposition usually in less than one year (compared to two to four years for regular...more

Patent Infringement for Listing on eBay?

by Field Law on

A patent owner notices that knock-off products are listed for sale on eBay. The knock-offs appear to infringe his patent. When eBay refuses to remove the allegedly infringing articles. The patent owner sues eBay for patent...more

Different Burdens of Proof and Different Records Allowed Different Conclusions on Validity by the PTAB and District Court

In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 16-1678, -1679 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding obvious certain patents that were previously found nonobvious in district...more

"Strategies for Litigants in Patent Infringement Cases Using Motions to Dismiss Post-Alice"

Nearly three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The decision, which ushered in an unprecedented wave of cases invalidating...more

Patent Holder Sues CBS and iHeart Over Digital Audio Signal Transmission Systems

On Friday, April 14, 2017, Digital Stream IP, LLC filed two separate complaints in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against CBS Radio Inc. and iHeartMedia, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

7,887 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 316
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!