This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more
One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de...more
No matter how complex or arcane the technology in a patent dispute might be, there is always a way to simplify it. Everything can be distilled down into clear, concise, and accurate explanations that judges, juries, and other...more
Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., Appeal Nos. 2021-2356, -2358, -2361, -2363, and -2365 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, a split panel of the Federal Circuit considered...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered in Conformis, Inc. v. Medacta USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1528-RGA (D.Del. March 4, 2021), The Honorable Richard G. Andrews construed the remaining terms in dispute in the four (4)...more
Welcome to Morrison & Foerster’s quarterly newsletter on dispute resolution. In this newsletter, we address recent developments in arbitrations, investigations, and commercial and intellectual property litigation that may...more
On Sept. 24, 2018, Alan Albright was sworn in as a U.S. district court judge — and the only U.S. district court judge — for the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. A former U.S....more
An unpublished decision from the Northern District of California emphasizes how important it is for attorneys to follow patent local rules. Patent local rules are rules that many federal district courts have for patent...more
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ordering plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC to pay over $700,000 in fees that accrued...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 17-389-RGA (D.Del. June 29, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Civil Action No. 16-812-RGA (D.Del. January 12, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman ruling...more
In a recently issued claim construction order, Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock held that terms included in all asserted claims are indefinite. He accordingly found the asserted claims invalid, stayed the Investigation,...more
In a recent order from the District of Massachusetts, the court granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a patent infringement dispute, finding the asserted patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s...more
By Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-140-RGA (D.Del. June 19, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling...more
Under some circumstances, party error can excuse late-filed amendments to infringement and invalidity contentions, according to a recent decision by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Approximately five years ago, plaintiff DataTern,...more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding seven terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on October 24, 2016. The disputed technology relates to pharmaceutical compositions for poorly soluble,...more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding nine terms from three patents. A Markman hearing took place on October 7, 2016. The disputed technology relates to bed rail systems that can be used to prevent...more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding four terms from two patents. A Markman hearing took place on August 9, 2016. The disputed terms are related to controlled-release formulations of the drug...more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding twenty-seven terms from four patents. A Markman hearing took place on August 29, 2016.The disputed technology relates to interactive computer networks and...more
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding eleven terms from five patents. A Markman hearing took place on August 10, 2016. The disputed technology relates fabricating thin film transistor array. The...more
Thynge, C.M. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding eight terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on June 3, 2016. The disputed technology relates photovoltaic roofing assembly. The following terms...more
In parallel decisions regarding litigation over the same patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the claims were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This decision, expressly...more
Who enforces a patent? When can a district court patent case be filed? What does the patent holder have to prove to win an infringement suit? Fenwick patent litigators Charlene Morrow and Dargaye Churnet cover these and other...more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding one term from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on May 3, 2016. Defendants presented the testimony of an expert at the hearing, and plaintiff cross-examined....more
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding three terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on April 25, 2016. The disputed technology relates to wireless radio frequency game control systems....more