News & Analysis as of

Preponderance of the Evidence

PTAB Interprets “By Another” in 35 § 102(e)

by Jones Day on

In connection with a dispute over parking meters, the PTAB, on March 27, 2017, issued a decision in IPR2016-00067 that Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. (DPT) had not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence,...more

Updated CHOICE Act Proposes to Impose Heightened Pleading Requirement and Raise Burden of Proof for Plaintiffs in Section 36(b)...

by Dechert LLP on

The Chairman of the Financial Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), on April 19, 2017 released an updated discussion draft of the Financial CHOICE1 Act (Bill), and the Committee held...more

Allergan Successfully Invalidates Claims Relating to Using Botox to Treat Back Pain

by Jones Day on

Allergan is typically the patent holder in these types of disputes, however, it recently successfully played the role of petitioner in an IPR against 1474791 Ontario Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,806,251 covering the use of...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more

PTAB Not Bound By Prior Court Decisions Upholding Exelon Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Novartis v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating certain claims of two Orange Book-listed Exelon patents. This decision has...more

Insufficient Showing of Public Availability of Prior Art and Strong, Unrebutted Evidence of Commercial Success Defeats IPR...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC (“Coalition” or “Petitioner”) failed to demonstrate that claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent...more

PTAB Ruling on CRISPR: No Interference

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in a closely watched patent fight with UC Berkeley over the breakthrough CRISPR...more

Enhanced Damages for Willful Infringement

Proving willful patent infringement became easier after the Supreme Court in Halo rejected the rigid two-part Seagate test for willful infringement, thereby removing a significant hurdle to an award of enhanced damages. In...more

2016’s Top Patent and Trade Secret Developments for Chemistry and Nanotechnology

While 2016 saw several significant IP developments regarding the USPTO claim construction standard and the standard of review of USPTO decisions, the following three developments may have the greatest impact on how in-house...more

Shareholders Seeking Books and Records Must Demonstrate Credible Basis to Infer Wrongdoing

by Bracewell LLP on

On February 2, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed that shareholders seeking to inspect the books and records of Delaware corporations must demonstrate a credible basis to infer corporate wrongdoing. Accusations...more

Third Circuit Clarifies Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof for USERRA Claims

by Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Third Circuit held that, in a failure-to-promote USERRA case, plaintiffs need not plead or prove that they are objectively qualified for the position sought in order to meet their initial burden of...more

Gavel to Gavel: Shifting water courses may affect property rights

by GableGotwals on

As anyone who has spent significant time near a western Oklahoma river is likely aware, our water courses tend to be shallow, with beds composed of loose, sandy soil. These characteristics make western Oklahoma rivers...more

Ninth Circuit Creates Bright-Line Rule, Finds Those Who Cannot Sit for More Than Four Hours Cannot Perform Sedentary Jobs

When applying de novo review to a claim for disability benefits under a group disability policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), district courts must consider all the evidence and...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

Intellectual Property Law - October 2016

Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more

Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Adopts Broader Octane Fitness Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Awards under the Lanham Act

by Fenwick & West LLP on

On October 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after an en banc rehearing in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., LTD., adopted the Octane Fitness standard for determining whether a case is...more

Octane Fitness and Highmark Apply to Ninth Circuit Attorney Fee Awards under the Lanham Act

by Snell & Wilmer on

On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that district courts analyzing a request for attorney fees under the Lanham Act should consider the totality of the circumstances, as set forth in...more

Fifth District Appellate Court Reverses Defense Verdict, Remands for New Trial on Issue of Damages

by Williams Venker & Sanders on

Larry Claro v. Shirley Ann DeLong, 2016 IL App (5th) 150557 (August 31, 2016). The Fifth District Appellate Court recently reversed a St. Clair County jury verdict in favor of the defendant and remanded the case to the...more

Willfulness After Halo: Now What?

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

The general consensus is that the Supreme Court’s June decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics eased the path to proving willfulness, as discussed previously on IP Litigation Current. Many speculated that one result...more

Defence & Indemnity - August 2016: II. LIABILITY ISSUES #3

by Field Law on

C. In cases involving injuries caused by one player to another during a sporting event, there must be a deliberate intent to cause injury or reckless disregard for liability to be found. Henderson v. Canadian Hockey Assn...more

Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision in the past quarter century for the working patent practitioner is Dickinson v. Zurko, which strictly speaking is less a patent case than an administrative law decision. ...more

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Summer 2016

by Fenwick & West LLP on

Supreme Court Expands Discretion to Award Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement and Eliminates the Federal Circuit’s ‘Seagate Test’ - In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court...more

Netsirv v. Boxbee, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

A post grant review (PGR) is an administrative reconsideration of a recent-granted U.S. patent. The proceeding is held in the USPTO, before that body's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A petition for PGR is timely if it is...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc. -- CAFC Grants Rehearing En Banc to Consider PTAB Motions to Amend

On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more

Halo Shines Bright in D. Mass.

A recent order from the District of Massachusetts sheds light on how the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics is being interpreted by the district courts. The Memorandum and Order by...more

95 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
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!