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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided that patent owners may appeal the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding the timeliness of inter partes review petitions under 35 U.S.C. §...more
1/16/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Broadcom ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a divided en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision insofar as it...more
On September 21, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cray, Inc. clarified the rules for determining proper venue in patent suits, building on the US Supreme Court’s May 2017 ruling in TC Heartland...more
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
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 2013-1472, - 1656 (October 22, 2014), the Federal Circuit concluded that there was no direct infringement when substantial activities of a sales transaction – including...more