Patents Supreme Court of the United States

News & Analysis as of

A Modest Proposal (or Two)

Any observer of the interaction between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court over the past decade has recognized that the Court has become increasingly critical of the Federal Circuit's patent jurisprudence and of...more

Federal Circuit’s Initial Reaction to Teva

In the nearly three months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that subsidiary factual findings in claim construction proceedings must be reviewed for clear error, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided...more

Diehr in the Headlights | Photonics Patents Blog

Since last year’s decision in Alice v.CLS Bank by the Supreme Court, the number of patents for computer-based inventions that have been struck down by challenges of their eligibility for patent protection has skyrocketed. ...more

Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 10-13-854, 135 S. Ct. 831 (Mar. 20, 2012) (Breyer, J. delivered opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.,...more

Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World [Video]

It has been a challenging year for software patent owners following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Since that ruling was handed down, a large number of software patents have been...more

Newsletter: March 2015

In This Issue: - Main Article: .. Inter Partes Review and the ITC: The Benefits and Risks of Filing IPR on Patents Asserted in an ITC Investigation - Noted With Interest: .. Securities Act Claims...more

Where Do We Go from Here? Teva’s Impact on IPR and District Court Practice

The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more

Supreme Court Shows Reluctance to Overturn Brulotte’s Prohibition on Post-Expiration Royalties

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, one of the most important cases on the Court’s docket this term for antitrust and patent law practitioners. As we previously discussed, in...more

Supreme Court Considers New Defense to Inducing Infringement

On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 13-896), which relates to whether a defendant can be liable for inducing infringement if the defendant had a good faith...more

Impact of Supreme Court’s Commil v. Cisco?

On March 31, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc. The Supreme Court considered the Federal Circuit’s holding that a belief in a patent’s invalidity is a defense to inducing...more

Kimble and Post-Expiration Royalties: The Next Big Thing, or Much Ado About Nothing?

Today, as we previewed here, the US Supreme Court analyzed the question of whether patent holders should be allowed to contract for royalty payments that continue to accrue after the expiration of the subject patent. While...more

Intellectual Property Legal News: Volume 2, Number 1

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IS IT TIME TO RETHINK HOW YOU WILL ARGUE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION? The United States Supreme Court decided in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. that the Federal Circuit must review all...more

IP Newsflash - March 2015 #4

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES - B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., Potential Issue Preclusion on Likelihood of Confusion Rulings - On March 24, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that that a...more

Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Federal Circuit availed itself of another opportunity to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz may be relevant in cases that are the exception rather than the rule. The Federal Circuit's...more

Supreme Court to Hear Argument on March 31 Whether to Overrule Brulotte v. Thys, Co.

Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964) that a license agreement requiring royalty payments for use of a patented invention after expiration of the patent term is unlawful per se. ...more

The Tyranny of the Judiciary

There has always been a tension between the need for a final arbiter of the law and the inherent power associated with such a role placed in the judicial branch. Jefferson himself was wary of this tendency, writing in a...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q1 2015

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Patent – Decided: January 20, 2015 - Holding: When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made during its construction of a patent claim,...more

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

The Plant Variety Protection Act—An Increasingly Important Form of Intellectual Property Protection for Plants

As part of their treaty obligations in establishing International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), member countries have enacted laws that provide ‘‘Plant Breeders’ Rights’’ for protecting the...more

Supreme Court: Patent Claim Construction – Two Standards Of Review

The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal...more

Solicitor General Argues that Antitrust Principles Do Not Warrant Overturning Brulotte

On Friday the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises. As we previously noted, in Kimble, the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys Co., a 50-year-old precedent...more

The Supreme Court's New Standard of Appellate Review for Claim Construction

On January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court redefined the standard of appellate review for claim construction. In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated well-established Federal Circuit...more

February 2015: Patent Litigation Update

Supreme Court to Review Good Faith Defense to Patent Inducement Claims. Last month in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. granted in part, No. 13-896, 2014 WL 318394 (U.S. Dec. 5,...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law: Winter 2015 - Vol. 13, Issue 1

In This Issue: - Tips for Developing a Cost-Effective Foreign Patent Strategy - Supreme Court Holds that Trademark Tacking Should be Decided by a Jury in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank - Amending...more

Federal Circuit Review - February 2015

More Deference to District Courts in Claim Construction - In TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC., No. 13-854, the Supreme Court held that factual findings underpinning claim construction rulings are reviewed...more

640 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 26

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×