On December 9, 2025, District Judge Eric Komitee (E.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Bemmo, Inc.’s (Bemmo) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding Plaintiff The Ridge Wallet, LLC (Ridge Wallet) pled...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court (FC) found that Teva would directly infringe but not induce infringement of certain claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 (335 patent) regarding its paliperidone palmitate product...more
U.S. patent law grants patent owners the right to grant licenses to their patents in analogy to landlords granting rents to real property as a license to use without obtaining ownership. 35 U.S.C. §§ 261-262. But the...more
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION v. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC - Before Newman, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A finding of inducing infringement requires...more
OMEGA PATENTS, LLC v. CALAMP CORPORATION - Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Licensing policies that allow use of any or all of a...more
In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit reinstated a jury's verdict that Teva infringed GSK's patented method of using its Coreg® drug product, even though Teva's product was initially...more
On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require a single entity to perform, direct, or control all of the steps of a patented process for infringement liability to arise from...more
In an earlier post related to this investigation, we discussed the ITC’s recommendation that a general exclusion order issue for products infringing Complainant National Products Inc.’s (“NPI”) patents after all named...more
On March 7, 2018, the Federal Court upheld the validity of Kennedy’s patent for a use of infliximab (Janssen’s REMICADE) (Patent No. 2,261,630 [the “630 patent”]), and granted Kennedy’s counterclaim that Hospira’s biosimilar...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del. March 16, 2018), the Court denied Defendant Power Integrations,...more
Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337. Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement. In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues...more
In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit clarified two or more parties can commit patent infringement of a method patent if one of the parties is conditioning the other(s). This ruling...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in IP Communication Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-134-GMS (D.Del. April 5, 2017), the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to...more
The District of Massachusetts recently grappled with the proper analytical standard when faced with a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in a patent infringement case. Judge Burroughs held that the familiar...more
In a complaint filed June 14, 2016, Janssen Biotech Inc. seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Celltrion and Hospira from selling the biosimilar version of Remicade® (infliximab) that received FDA approval April 2016,...more
It is a deceptively simple question with a not so simple answer. A purely foreign transaction is certainly beyond the reach of U.S. patent law, but what if part of the transaction occurs within the United States? For example,...more
The patent case between Commil and Cisco, a case that made new law at the Supreme Court on the issue of the intent requirement in cases of induced infringement allegations, came to an end with a whimper on remand back to the...more
Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-1432 – LPS- CJB, October 16 , 2015. Burke, M. J. Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pre-suit induced...more
Addressing whether an accused defendant infringed patents through the distribution of its software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s summary judgment that the defendant did not...more
Recent jurisprudence on the issue of divided infringement has arisen in the context of computer-related technologies, where a user or customer performs one or more steps of a patented method. Now the issue has arisen in the...more
Federal Circuit Remands Record Damages Award For New Trial On Extraterritorial Sales - In Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Appeal No. 2014-1492, the Federal Circuit reversed a damages award...more
In Astornet Technologies, Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissed of actions for induced infringement where the alleged direct infringer was the U.S. government. In particular,...more
In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this week adopted a new standard governing divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The new standard is likely to enhance...more
On August 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit, acting en banc, ruled that the International Trade Commission (ITC) has the authority to prevent importation of products based on claims for induced infringement where the predicate...more