News & Analysis as of

Preponderance of the Evidence Patent Infringement

Fish & Richardson

Five Tactics for Cybersecurity Companies to Defeat Patent Infringement Claims

Fish & Richardson on

Navigating patent infringement claims requires a deep understanding of both the legal landscape and the specifics of the technology at stake, especially in the fast-evolving cybersecurity sector. Creative litigation...more

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: The “Skilled Searcher” and IPR Estoppel

AEON Law on

The Federal Circuit has issued an opinion on the burden of proof for establishing estoppel in a case involving an inter partes review (IPR) petition. The case is Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp....more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-0823-CFC-JLH, 2021 WL 3886418 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2021) (Connolly, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vasostrict® (vasopressin); U.S. Patents...more

Weintraub Tobin

District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees Even After Granting Clear Summary Judgment On Noninfringement Grounds

Weintraub Tobin on

In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Collateral estoppel does not attach to PTAB invalidity determination pending appeal

Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - September 2018: Best Strategies for ITC Respondents When Considering a PTAB Action

When faced with allegations of patent infringement at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a respondent must quickly evaluate whether or not to request an AIA review (hereinafter, inter partes review for convenience) at...more

Holland & Knight LLP

New Reverse-Payment Decision Sheds Further Light on Plaintiffs’ Causation Burden

Holland & Knight LLP on

As post-Actavis antitrust litigation over so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements proceeds, courts continue to provide further illumination about what evidence a private plaintiff would need to offer to survive summary...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Reverse-Payment Plaintiffs Mine Patent Litigation Record to Survive Summary Judgment

Holland & Knight LLP on

We pointed out in a recent article that, based on recent decisions by the Courts of Appeals for the First and Third Circuits, private antitrust plaintiffs seeking damages from so-called “reverse-payment” settlement agreements...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Industry Perspectives On The Biosimilar Patent Dance

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Supreme Court could issue its decision in the Amgen v. Sandoz biosimilar patent dance case any day now. Last week I participated in a panel discussion with industry stakeholders considering how the decision might–or might...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Halo Effect – Making Angels Out of Infringers?

Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement in an effort to support the collection of enhanced damages from an infringer. Typically, if there was willful infringement the damages were enhanced and often...more

Jones Day

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

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

PTAB Not Bound By Prior Court Decisions Upholding Exelon Patents

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Knobbe Martens on

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

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Willfulness After Halo: Now What?

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Summer 2016

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

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - August 2016

Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness - On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

The Renewed Importance of Opinions of Counsel in Patent Infringement Actions

Proskauer Rose LLP on

Several recent court decisions in patent infringement actions reflect the significant impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., which dramatically altered the landscape for...more

Williams Mullen

In Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, Supreme Court Strikes Down Seagate Test for Enhanced Damages Under Section 284 of the...

Williams Mullen on

Patent infringement plaintiffs and defendants alike fret over enhanced damages: Section 284 of the Patent Act, the basis for enhanced damages, provides that a court may grant a damages award up to three times actual damages....more

Knobbe Martens

Supreme Court Makes it Easier for Medical Device Companies to Recover Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

Knobbe Martens on

The Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Previously, in order to recover enhanced damages under the Patent Act, a patent owner...more

McDermott Will & Emery

The New Willfulness Paradigm

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - June 2016

WilmerHale on

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Halo V Pulse: High Court Relaxes Standard For Enhanced Patent Damages

Ladas & Parry LLP on

On June 13, 2016 Chief Justice Roberts delivered a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Halo v. Pulse on the question of when enhanced damages can be awarded for patent infringement. This decision reversed...more

53 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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