Power Probe Grp., Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corp., 21-cv-00332 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2023) While it is accepted that filing an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint rendering it without legal effect, a defendant...more
On January 10, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc’s (“Bytemark”) motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, asserting two new patents after the prior...more
We have previously reported on AbbVie’s first and second wave suits against Alvotech hf. (Alvotech) in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an adalimumab biosimilar. In the second wave suit, on December 21, 2021,...more
District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle - In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more
BOT M8 LLC v. SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA - Before Dyk, Linn, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: The district court’s conclusion that...more
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision declining to seal information in an amended complaint where the defendant failed to prove that the information was a trade secret. DePuy Synthes Products,...more
DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC. v. VETERINARY ORTHOPEDIC IMPLANT, INC. Before Prost, Clevenger, and Dyk. Appeal from the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Internal efforts to maintain confidentiality are not enough...more
On October 27, 2020, the District Court in the Western District of Texas issued its Final Judgment in L’Oreal USA Creative, Inc. v. Drunk Elephant, LLC, 1:18-cv-00982 (W.D.Tex.), which approved the Joint Stipulation of...more
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos....more
On December 5, 2019, Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas denied the defendant Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.’s (“Diebold”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc. et al.,...more
Addressing the application of the relation-back doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit, finding that damages were available because the amended complaint that asserted new patents related...more
This summer, the District of Utah dismissed Simio’s lawsuit against Flexsim Software, finding that the asserted patent was not patent eligible under Section 101. Simio responded by asking the court to vacate its judgment or,...more
Reaffirming that the plaintiff in a patent case has the burden of establishing that venue is proper, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal. The Court ultimately denied the...more
ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Patent infringement claims in an amended complaint may relate...more
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) panel has determined that emailing a proposed amended complaint is not “service of a complaint” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). On January 23, 2018, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc....more
Addressing patent eligibility at the motion to dismiss stage of a case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, finding that the district court improperly...more
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY - Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must...more
CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. V. FITBIT, INC. ET AL. Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: While not all factual allegations that are...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal of a complaint for failing to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), finding error in the district court’s use of judicial notice to do fact-finding outside the...more
Coherus announced today that it has executed settlement agreements with AbbVie that grant Coherus global, non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license rights under AbbVie’s intellectual property to commercialize CHS-1420, Coherus’...more
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) McNamara’s recent order suggests that respondents may be permitted to add defenses if another respondent makes the complainant aware of the defense during discovery. See In the Matter of...more
Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Appeal No. 2018-1028 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2019) In an appeal from a district court dismissal of a case seeking correction of inventorship, the Federal Circuit reversed...more