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
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
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, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of...more
Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement complaints under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard should take notice. On September 30, 2016, a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a deficient...more
10/13/2016
/ CAFC ,
CBS ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Joint Infringement ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
Television Broadcast Stations ,
Twombly/Iqbal Pleading Standard
On Friday, March 18, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two District of Delaware rulings that non-resident defendant generic ANDA filer, Mylan, is subject to personal jurisdiction in two Hatch-Waxman suits...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement...more
8/3/2015
/ Cisco ,
Cisco v CommilUSA ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Good Faith ,
Honest Belief Defense ,
Induced Infringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Willful Infringement