In a second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, after the Court affirmed a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on “bad faith” non-disclosure of statutory bar prior sales on the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the minimum contacts or purposeful availment test for specific personal jurisdiction was satisfied where a patent owner sent multiple infringement notice letters...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now vacated its prior ruling finding induced infringement based on so-called skinny labeling on a pharmaceutical product. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...more
2/25/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inducement ,
Intent ,
Labeling ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
6/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Addressing the scope of review of the PTAB’s application of the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an IPR proceeding, the US Supreme Court held that the PTAB’s application of the time bar...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more
11/4/2019
/ Appeals ,
Chevron Deference ,
Final Action ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patents ,
Request for Continued Examination ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness over a patent owner’s challenge to the “combination” of prior art, explaining that no motivation to combine...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to consider whether US patent owners can recoup some profits lost because of infringement that occurs outside of the United States. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,...more
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has clarified certain portions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), concluding (1) that biosimilar makers do not have to wait for...more
On February 22, 2017, in reversing the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for...more
In a September 2015 panel decision, Achates Reference Publishing v. Apple, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that under 35 USC 314(b), decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that an...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in a case involving the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) in the context of a biosimilars dispute. Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen Inc. and...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for certiorari to consider whether 28 USC § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions in light of amendments made...more
A unanimous US Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include either the end product sold to the consumer or...more
12/8/2016
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Cell Phones ,
Design Patent ,
iPhone ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
SCOTUS ,
Smartphones
In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more
10/12/2016
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
En Banc Review ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
Controlling Costs in International Arbitration -
Arbitration is an efficient means for resolving business disputes because it offers more flexibility than court proceedings and enables the parties to choose arbitrators...more
8/22/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Arbitration ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Internal Investigations ,
International Arbitration ,
Korea ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
USPTO ,
White Collar Crimes
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s due process rights were not violated when a district court found that the defendant did not infringe all of the originally asserted patents, even...more
Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., Case Nos. 14-1617, -1619 (Fed Cir, Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc) (Taranto, J., joined by Prost, CJ and Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Chen and Stoll, JJ)...more
The U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) was...more
2/15/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Certiorari ,
Claim Construction ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
First Sale Doctrine ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
SCOTUS
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) after determining that the challenged claims were indefinite and that therefore the Board could not apply the prior art to...more
Taking its first IP cases of the current session, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two § 284 enhanced fee award patent cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., S.Ct. No. 14-1513 (Oct. 19, 2015) and...more
11/5/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Certiorari ,
Damages ,
Enhanced Penalties ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Stryker Ortho ,
Treble Damages ,
Willful Infringement
In two related decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that patents directed to a personal computer interactive lottery/casino type game that allows players to purchase game tickets in the form...more
10/7/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
America Invents Act ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Versata
In a trio of orders addressing the extent of express explanation required in a petition for post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found each petition defective for lack of explanation regarding...more
Addressing the impact of expert testimony used during claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court, following its January 5, 2015 decision in Teva...more
Addressing the issue of damages for trade dress and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the bulk of Apple’s roughly $930 million damages award, noting that there is no apportionment...more