This week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court decided two important questions related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over inter partes review proceedings. First,...more
6/27/2016
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Phillips Standard ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
On Monday, June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court deferred a decision on the certiorari petitions filed by both parties from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794 F.3d 1347 (2015), and instead called for the views...more
6/24/2016
/ Amgen ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Certiorari ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS
Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more
10/2/2015
/ Breach of Contract ,
Brulotte ,
IP License ,
Kimble v Marvel Enterprises ,
License Agreements ,
Licensing Rights ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Public Domain ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis
On August 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. changed the law regarding liability for direct infringement of a method patent involving more than one actor (divided...more
Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more
Six justices of the Supreme Court agree that an accused indirect infringer’s good faith belief in invalidity of a patent “will not negate the scienter required under §271(b).” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896,...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more
On January 14, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's exclusion in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011), of post-approval...more
In This Bulletin:
- Just Moot It: Supreme Court in Already v. Nike Clarifies When a Covenant Not to Sue Can Kill a Declaratory Judgment Case
- Murky Waters: Post-Approval Regulatory Activities and the §...more
4/4/2013
/ Covenant Not to Sue ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Mootness ,
Nike ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Public Performance Rights ,
Safe Harbors ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trademarks ,
Transfer of Venue
On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,1 which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This case addresses a type of patent litigation settlement...more