President Trump has signed Phase I of a much anticipated multi-part trade agreement between the United States and China with provisions that will aid the branded pharmaceutical industry. One of the main goals of the agreement...more
1/23/2020
/ China ,
Counterfeit Drugs ,
Criminal Liability ,
Dispute Resolution ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Trade Agreements ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trump Administration ,
US Trade Policies
On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under
35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more
6/26/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
Appeals ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Exports ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Profits ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation
On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court fundamentally narrowed patent venue by unanimously holding in TC Heartland that patent holders must follow the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which requires suing (1) “where the...more
When the US Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland was published, many patent practitioners thought that the decision would adversely affect the Eastern District of Texas, a popular venue for patentees because of its quick...more
7/13/2017
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Forum Shopping ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Raytheon ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
On May 22, 2017, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected prior case law allowing patent holders to rely on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), to file suit where a domestic defendant makes sales. TC Heartland,...more
5/24/2017
/ Domestic Corporations ,
Foreign Corporations ,
Forum Shopping ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
On March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-1 decision in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, wiping out the equitable defense of laches in some patent cases. In particular, where patent...more
The US Supreme Court held in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip No. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017) that supplying a single component of a multi-component invention manufactured abroad does not give rise to patent infringement...more
In a case reversing a $399 million damages award to Apple, the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously that an “article of manufacture” under the design patent damages statute can be anything from an entire product to a...more
12/9/2016
/ Apple v Samsung ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Design Patent ,
Patent Infringement ,
Popular ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Smartphones
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more
6/15/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Seagate ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Willful Infringement
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling citing stare decisis, upheld the half-century rule against royalty payments accruing after expiration of a patent. The Court’s decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a...more
6/24/2015
/ Brulotte ,
Expiration Date ,
Kimble v Marvel Enterprises ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
SCOTUS ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Stare Decisis
On June 2, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc. that a patent claim may be found indefinite if it fails to convey the scope of the invention “with reasonable certainty” to a person...more
On June 2, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that direct infringement by a single party is a prerequisite to a finding of induced infringement. In doing so, the...more
In twin unanimous opinions issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected long-standing Federal Circuit rules governing the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation, and appellate review of...more