News & Analysis as of

Infringement Patents Supreme Court of the United States

MoFo Life Sciences

Is DOE Now In Vogue?

MoFo Life Sciences on

On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a closely watched case on the issue of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Though not the main point of contention, the doctrine of...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

UK Supreme Court Decisions in Unwired Planet V Huawei and Hauwei V. Conversant

Ladas & Parry LLP on

On August 26, 2020, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down its unanimous combined decision in the cases of Unwired Planet v. Huawei and Huawei v. Conversant. Both cases involved questions of: 1. Whether the...more

Nossaman LLP

Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Is No Defense To Claim Of Inducing Infringement

Nossaman LLP on

Commil, USA, LLC sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for patent infringement and inducing patent infringement with regard to Commil’s patented method of implementing short-range wireless networks. Today, in Commil, USA, LLC v. Cisco...more

Stinson LLP

Supreme Court Decision Eliminates Defense to Claim of Inducing Infringement

Stinson LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, May 26 that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of inducing infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-1986 (May 26, 2015). The Supreme...more

Gray Reed

Does there need to be patent reform?

Gray Reed on

Regular readers know I am a fan of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The show has done multiple segments relevant to our topics of discussion. They recently did a segment on patent reform....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Software and Trade Secrets: Rethinking IP Strategies after CLS v. Alice

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Historically, the patent system has provided broad protections to software innovations. In the past, software patent holders could prevent competitor infringement without much need for a comprehensive disclosure of the...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Federal Circuit Standards for Indefiniteness and Induced Infringement

The US Supreme Court issued two anticipated decisions on June 2, 2014, relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standards for indefiniteness and induced infringement. In the first, Nautilus, Inc....more

Fenwick & West LLP

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Revives 'Divided Infringement' Defense to Inducement

Fenwick & West LLP on

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786, Slip Op. (June 2, 2014) - The United States Supreme Court has revived “divided infringement” as a defense to claims for inducement of patent...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

United States Trade Secrets Law

Ladas & Parry LLP on

The America Invents Act (AIA) changes the traditional calculus in determining whether to seek patenting an invention or to maintain it as a trade secret. This shift in intellectual property protection is the result of two...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Overrules Federal Circuit’s Decision in Akamai

In a unanimous and unequivocal opinion, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that liability for inducement of patent infringement requires that the induced entity itself perform every element of a claim, and thus directly...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Induced Infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., reversing the en banc Federal Circuit decision and holding that there can be no liability for induced...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court Rules Patentee Always Bears Burden of Proving Infringement

In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Patentees Bear the Burden of Proof of Infringement in DJ Actions Brought by Licensee

A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Burden of Proving Infringement Does Not Shift to Licensees in Declaratory Judgment Actions

The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Declaratory Judgment Claimants: Which Products Are You Saying Don’t Infringe?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Declaratory judgment plaintiffs and counterclaimants in patent cases have long been accustomed to filing boilerplate claims that either do not identify an accused technology, or that do so in a cursory manner. Noninfringement...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amicus Curiae Briefs in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific – Legal Scholars Support Medtronic; Tessera Supports Vacatur and Remand

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The sole issue to be determined is whether the burden of proof shifts in a declaratory judgment action...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Federal Circuit Opinion in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

"In the modern economy, licensing of intellectual property rights is a widespread and essential activity." Those are the opening lines from the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

United States Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases That Could Potentially Deter Non-Practicing Entities From Filing Frivolous...

On October 1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the “exceptional” case standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in two separate patent-infringement cases. Both cases relate to patentees who are...more

McDermott Will & Emery

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 9, September 2013

McDermott Will & Emery on

Patents/Preliminary Injunction: Preliminary Injunction Ordered Based on Appellate Claim Construction Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. - Addressing a preliminary injunction filed by a defendant in a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amici Submit Brief in Support of Ambry Genetics and Gene by Gene

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Utah Foundation, Inc., Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), Breast Cancer Action, and AARP submitted an amici curiae brief...more

BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

BakerHostetler on

While the facts may show that damages would be reparable, this assumption is not sufficient [for purposes of a preliminary injunction analysis]....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Myriad Genetics Files Infringement Suit Against Gene by Gene for Genetic Diagnostic Testing of BRCA Genes Hidden Field

A day after Myriad Genetics sued Ambry Genetics for patent infringement, the company filed suit in the District of Utah, Central Divisions against Gene by Gene Ltd. (Case No. 2:13-cv-00643-EJF; complaint). The complaint is...more

McDermott Will & Emery

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2013

McDermott Will & Emery on

Patents / Patent Eligible Subject Matter - Supreme Court to Myriad: Isolated DNA Sequences Are Not Patent-Eligible Subject Matter -- AMP et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: In a 9–0 decision the Supreme...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Momenta Case

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant certiorari in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, a case involving a split in authority that has arisen among Federal Circuit judges regarding the scope of the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 6 June 2013

Knobbe Martens on

In This Issue: • Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction • Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds • Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards • Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry - Excerpt...more

52 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide