Litigators in the life sciences field are no doubt familiar with the so-called “artificial” act of infringement established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)-(B): namely, that a party can be sued for patent infringement by merely...more
Patent claim limitations that are “negative”—that is, claim limitations specifying the absence of a particular element from the patent claim—can pose a dilemma in the written description context. How much of the specification...more
Confronting a life sciences patentee with its statements to regulatory bodies (such as the FDA) is a textbook defense strategy in patent litigation. After all, communications with regulatory bodies are often performed by...more
In a decision reaching all corners of the technology sector, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2021 held that, when fairness requires, a patent inventor can contest a patent's validity after assigning it to a third party....more
In a recent decision involving a dispute between head-to-head competitors in the market for “poster boards and poster board accessory products,” Judge Bolden in the District of Connecticut dismissed defendant Royal Consumer...more
In a dramatic conclusion to the nearly seven year old patent litigation between Datatern and Microstrategy (including a number of Microstrategy’s customers), Judge Saylor in the District of Massachusetts recently awarded...more
6/22/2018
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Claim Construction ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Dispositive Motions ,
Exceptional Case ,
Failure to Prosecute ,
Mistake ,
Motion to Withdraw ,
Non-Payment Clauses ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Software Patents
Last year, a jury awarded Brigham and Women’s Hospital (“BWH”) approximately $10 million after it found that defendant Perrigo Company’s (“Perrigo”) generic version of Pepcid® Complete® willfully infringed BWH’s patent. After...more
Under some circumstances, party error can excuse late-filed amendments to infringement and invalidity contentions, according to a recent decision by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Approximately five years ago, plaintiff DataTern,...more
In a recent decision, Magistrate Judge Kelley addressed the legitimacy of withholding third party communications under the common interest doctrine. The case involved plaintiff Crane Security Technologies, Inc. (“Crane”) –...more
2/17/2017
/ Common-Interest Privilege ,
Confidential Communications ,
Counterfeiting ,
Financial Institutions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
IP License ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Technology ,
Third-Party Relationships
In a recent landmark decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit announced that not all inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office can be appealed. While anyone can file an IPR petition, not...more
The recent jury verdict in a dispute over a generic version of the heartburn medication Pepcid® Complete® would be enough for anyone to reach for a few tablets of the accused product. After an eight day trial presided over by...more
12/21/2016
/ Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Laches ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Summary Judgment ,
Willful Infringement
We previously wrote about Judge Wolf’s decision to invalidate Janssen Biotech, Inc.’s (“Janssen”) biopharmaceutical patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 (the “’471 Patent”)), based on the doctrine of obviousness-type double...more
10/6/2016
/ Biotechnology ,
Celltrion ,
Dismissals ,
Healthcare ,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals ,
Life Sciences ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
In a recent decision on obviousness-type double patenting, Judge Wolf shortened the shelf life of a dispute between Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”) and Celltrion Healthcare Co. Inc. (“Celltrion”), relating to a...more
A recent decision from Judge Stearns sheds new light on a dispute between Lexington Luminance (“Lexington”) and Google over LED technology.
The dispute began in November, 2012, when Lexington accused Google of infringing...more
It started with Vermont in 2013. Since then, over half the states have enacted legislation aimed at curbing patent infringement suits from non-practicing entities. Now, the band may add another member: Massachusetts....more
7/14/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Bad Faith ,
Demand Letter ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Reform ,
Patents ,
Pending Legislation ,
State Law Claims ,
Treble Damages
In a lengthy litigation between Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) and Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”), the District of Massachusetts recently addressed whether Limelight waived issues presented in its Renewed Motion...more