Collaborating with other companies on new products, services, and promotions can help businesses boost revenue and increase their visibility, but one downside of such projects is the possibility of exposing trade secrets to...more
Most trade secret cases involve allegations that a former employee is using a company’s confidential information at a new job or their own business. Given that reality, and the workforce disruptions caused by the coronavirus...more
Trade secrets are typically associated with a company’s most profitable products and services, and maintaining control of critical confidential information is often essential to a company’s revenue stream and continued...more
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
8/18/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Willful Infringement
With the US economy officially in a recession as of June and business closures continuing due to rising coronavirus infection rates, more companies may need to conduct layoffs in the coming months. Although discharging...more
8/18/2020
/ Confidential Information ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Involuntary Reduction in Force ,
Layoffs ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
Risk Management ,
Severance Agreements ,
Theft ,
Trade Secrets ,
Voluntary Reduction in Force
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
8/4/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Amended Complaints ,
Contributory Infringement ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Induced Infringement ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Volkswagen ,
Willful Infringement
Recently, in Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No 19-2041 (July 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of $3.5 million in pre-suit damages and vacated the trial court’s...more
Companies across the United States quickly rolled out remote work arrangements in response to the COVID-19 health crisis, and as virus caseloads continue to climb, the trend is likely to continue. As working off-site becomes...more
The sharp upswing in trade secret litigation triggered by the global financial crisis of the late 2000s taught companies some hard lessons about trade secret theft and disputes. Although we’re already immersed in a new...more
An economic downturn usually leads to a rise in trade secret theft and litigation, and conditions are ripe for a major surge in cases from the current slump, given widespread job losses and companies’ embrace of remote...more
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos....more
On May 8, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s application of the disclosure-dedication doctrine in granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in Eagle Pharmaceuticals...more
5/15/2020
/ Dedication-Disclosure Defense ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Expert Testimony ,
Extrinsic Evidence ,
Judgment on the Pleadings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Question of Law
On April 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 19-cv-10099, denied Sun’s motion to dismiss Celgene’s claims that Sun’s generic Revlimid® (lenalidomide)...more
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
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
10/11/2019
/ Appeals ,
B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over...more
8/24/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Venue
On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2126, 2127, 2128, reversed in-part and affirmed in-part a district court’s determination of...more
On April 17, 2019, Judge Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Apicore v. Beloteca, No. 19-cv-00077, held that while the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a generic...more
The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme...more
3/15/2019
/ Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Iancu v. Brunetti ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
Scandalous/Immoral Marks ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vulgar or Offensive Marks
On February 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, No. 2017-1694, dismissed Momenta’s appeal of a Final Written Decision in an Inter Partes...more
A federal district court judge recently applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, in which the Supreme Court held that lost profits damages could be awarded for...more
On April 16, 2018 in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma v. Emcure Pharms., Nos. 2017-1798, -1799, -1800, affirmed the United States District Court for...more
An introduction to § 271 -
Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement. The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), §...more
4/6/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) ,
Appeals ,
Contributory Infringement ,
Damages ,
Exports ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Technology Sector
On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal.
Issue presented -
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) requires that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issue a final...more
In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught...more