News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Patent Litigation

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | August 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

The Broad Impact of Edwards v. Meril on the Safe Harbor Provision

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2024 #3

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, July 2024: Impact of the End of Chevron on USPTO; PTAB Filings Are Up; and More

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more

Fish & Richardson

How the Timing of Director Review May Affect Co-Pending Litigation

Fish & Richardson on

Director Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remains a hot topic in patent law. The Director first established an interim process for Director Review in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United...more

Sunstein LLP

The Kessler Doctrine: An Expanded Form of Preclusion Unique to Patent Litigation

Sunstein LLP on

Late last year, the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of over $5 million in attorneys’ fees in favor of the defendants in PersonalWeb v. Patreon. In addressing the propriety of the award, the Federal Circuit also took the...more

Lathrop GPM

Broad Biotech Patent Claims-the Saga Continues

Lathrop GPM on

There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Issues Updated Examination Guidance After Federal Circuit Overhauls Test for Design Patent Obviousness

Womble Bond Dickinson on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Memorandum to the Corps of Patent Examiners (the “Guidance”), attempting to provide clarity in the wake of the Federal Circuit’s highly anticipated en banc...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court Holds Invalid Cholesterol Drug Patent That Covered Millions of Undisclosed Antibodies

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Large and Unjustified: Second Circuit Clarifies Pleading Requirements in Reverse Payments Cases

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP on

On May 13—and more than ten years after Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on reverse payment settlements—the Second Circuit for the first time weighed in on whether (and how) antitrust...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Spring Has Sprung Obviousness Trends from the Federal Circuit

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: The PTAB, Cert Petition and My Oscars Picks

Holland & Knight LLP on

Dennis Crouch, famed Patently-O blogger, recently looked at several Section 101 decisions from the PTAB. In his first post, "Four Funerals: Recent 101 Decisions," Crouch analyzes four recent eligibility cases that involve...more

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: Will Federal Circuit Soften Test for Design Patent Obviousness?

AEON Law on

An en banc panel of the Federal Circuit recently heard arguments in a case that could change how courts assess design patents for “obviousness.” LKQ Corporation and GM Global Technology Operations LLC are engaged in a...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal

Jones Day on

On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, February 2024: Supreme Court Passes on Fintiv Challenge, Parallel IPR/District Court Litigation, First Precedential...

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: SCOTUS Won’t Hear Challenge to PTAB’s Fintiv Rule- The U.S. Supreme...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition)

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

2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023)

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

The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Senate Holds Hearing on Legislative Initiative to Address Patent Eligibility

McDermott Will & Emery on

Seeking to undo the current jurisprudence “mess” on the issue of patent eligibility, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony on January 23, 2024, on the Patent Eligibility...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Patent Claims Directed to a Graphical User Interface as Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35...

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to a graphical user interface that seeks to enhance how search results are displayed to a user. The court agreed that the claims are...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC (Fed. Cir. 2023)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de...more

Knobbe Martens

USPTO Says Wands Still Controls Enablement Analysis Post-Amgen

Knobbe Martens on

On January 9, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for its patent examiners when evaluating compliance with the enablement requirement in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et...more

Venable LLP

New USPTO Guidelines: After the Supreme Court's Amgen Decision, In re Wands Factors Remain Applicable Enablement Framework

Venable LLP on

On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued "Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v....more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Enablement Post-Amgen and New USPTO Guidelines

Womble Bond Dickinson on

On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Guidelines, applicable to any technology, for ascertaining compliance with the enablement requirement in view of the U.S. Supreme Court...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Law360: Supreme Court Amgen Ruling's Major Effect On Enablement

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

Eight months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the enablement requirement in the May 18, 2023, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi decision.[1] Although the court did not change the law, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more

1,038 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 42
Next »

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide