On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, holding that when the Patent and Trademark Office grants a petition for inter partes review and rejects a contention that the...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, holding in a unanimous decision that an invention sold to a third party under a confidentiality agreement...more
1/23/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, holding that, for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a domestic corporation resides only in...more
On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927, holding that a defendant cannot invoke laches against a damages claim asserted...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513, and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1520, holding that a patent-infringement plaintiff can...more