On January 16th, 2025, GT Medical Technologies, announced that it has raised $37 million in Series D financing round. The financing round was led by Evidity Health Capital and joined by Accelmed Partners. Current investors MVM…
more
/ Finance & Banking, Health, Securities Law
Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument…
more
/ Business Torts, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Stryker, one of the world’s largest medtech companies, announced on January 28 that it would be selling its Spinal Implants business to Viscogliosi Brothers, a New York-based, family-owned investment firm founded in 1999 by…
more
/ Business Organizations, Health, Mergers & Acquisitions
Report summary -Knobbe Martens' inaugural Federal Circuit Year in Review report offers a comprehensive overview of the most significant Federal Circuit rulings of 2024 and how they could shape IP law in the years ahead. Covering…
more
/ Intellectual Property, Law Practice Products & Services, Science, Computers, & Technology
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued two draft guidance documents aimed at providing recommendations for the use of AI in medical devices and drug and biological product development.These guidance documents…
more
/ Administrative Law, Health, Science, Computers, & Technology
Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark - Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing date, not its publication date. Samsung filed a petition for IPR of a Lynk Labs…
more
/ Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Before Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patent was not invalid for lack of written description for failing to describe the specific infringing embodiment…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Before Chen, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Federal patent laws preempted a state-law conversion claim. Inventorship was properly evaluated using a…
more
/ Business Torts, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success - In Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp., Appeal No. 23-2074, the Federal Circuit held that a claim limitation merely reciting an…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
MIRROR WORLDS TECHS., LLC v. META PLATFORMS, INC. - Before Prost, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: Expert testimony that is conclusory, supported…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
On October 11, 2024, Edwards filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The question presented, as framed by Edwards, is: “Whether, under Hatch-Waxman’s safe harbor, an infringing act is “solely for…
more
/ Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC. - Before Dyk, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Summary: An offer for sale…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property
CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB V. JSR CORP. - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim limitation merely reciting an inherent property or result of an otherwise obvious…
more
/ Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
PS PRODUCTS INC. V. PANTHER TRADING CO. INC. - Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. Summary: Section 285 does not prohibit an award of deterrence sanctions under the court’s…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
