The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
(Podcast) The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
This month the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and in doing so, seemingly indicated its support for a broad interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor...more
On August 13, the Federal Circuit, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., held that a “first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring...more
On Monday, October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) denied United Therapeutics Corporation (“UTC”) petition for certiorari clearing the way for Liquidia Corporation (“Liquidia”) to launch its Yutrpia® drug product....more
The Supreme Court denies Cellect LLC's petition for certiorari to consider whether patent term adjustment ("PTA") should be included in patent term for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes....more
On October 7, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear Cellect LLC v. Vidal, No. 23-1231. The case has been followed closely by patent professionals ever since the Federal Circuit upended the judicially-created doctrine of...more
Late last year, the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of over $5 million in attorneys’ fees in favor of the defendants in PersonalWeb v. Patreon. In addressing the propriety of the award, the Federal Circuit also took the...more
Two weeks ago we discussed Vanda Pharmaceuticals’ ambitious cert petition asking the Supreme Court to discontinue the “reasonable expectation of success” standard for patent obviousness that for decades has been a mainstay of...more
On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Thaler v. Vidal, leaving intact the Federal Circuit's ruling that only human beings, and not artificial intelligence ("AI") systems, can be inventors under...more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Teva”) petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, ending a nearly nine-year court...more
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday, November 4, 2022, to review the standard for enablement of genus claims after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi. We have previously covered Amgen’s petition for a writ...more
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - Judge Moore, in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC stated the obvious when she said in her dissent: My colleagues' refusal deflates the Amici's hopeful...more
In an order that is clearly less impactful and damaging than a number of opinions that the Supreme Court has disgorged in the last two weeks, the justices have denied certiorari in American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings...more
As we’ve written about multiple times, a petition for certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s starkly divided decision in American Axle has been pending at the Supreme Court for some time. Many thought this would be the case...more
In a month where the Supreme Court's conservative majority has exercised its judicial muscle by striking down several well-established precedents, one portion of their jurisprudence is as fixed a constant as the Northern...more
This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the closely-watched patent eligibility case of American Axle v. Neapco. There were no noted dissents and no statements respecting the denial of certiorari. The denial means...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied TCL Communication’s certiorari petition, without comment, appealing the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the essentiality of a patent claim is a question for the jury rather than judges to...more
Those waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Section 101 were, once again, disappointed this week. On Nov. 16, 2020, in the case of WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. et al., case no. 20-325 (U.S. Supreme Court), the...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal...more
In the Supreme Court's recent clarifying campaign through the Federal Circuit's U.S. patent law jurisprudence, one section of the statute, 35 U.S.C. §112(a) has been noticeably left unscathed. Indeed, avoidance of this...more
Most readers have been following the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex and know that an earlier and less developed Arthrex I case is on cert to the Supreme Court asking the Court to address the appointments...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), lower courts and the United States Patent and...more
The hopes of anyone in favor of patent reform targeting 35 U.S.C § 101 have been official dashed -- or at least put on hold. In an interview with the Intellectual Property Owner's association (IPO) last week, Senator Thom...more