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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered that the only Orange Book patent asserted in a lawsuit must be delisted since its claims were directed to the computer-implemented distribution system and not a method...more
On July 25, 2022, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an order specifying that all future patent cases filed in the Waco Division will be randomly assigned to one of the 12...more
In WAG Acquisition LLC v. Flying Crocodile Inc et al, 2-19-cv-01278 (WDWA Dec. 28, 2021), the Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination even though the case had already previously been stayed...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An unpublished decision from the Northern District of California emphasizes how important it is for attorneys to follow patent local rules.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
On March 6, 2020, a Central District Court in UPL NA Inc. f/k/a United Phosphorous, Inc. v. Tide International (USA), Inc. et al, 8-19-cv-01201 (CDCA 2020-03-06, Order) (Ronald S.W. Lew), issued an order that may become more...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
At the heart of intellectual property litigation are people: People who are disputing the uniqueness and similarities of products and trademarks. The dispute is resolved through the decisions made by judges, arbiters, and...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
The presumption that claim terms should be interpreted using their plain and ordinary meaning, absent express intent to the contrary, has long been a staple in claim construction. Parties often submit proposed constructions...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
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding two terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on November 17, 2016. The disputed technology relates to biometric belt connectors....more
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding six terms from three patents. A Markman hearing took place on November 15, 2016. The disputed technology relates to devices and methods for distributing signals...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
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding two terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on September 21, 2016. The disputed technology relates to pharmaceutical compositions containing isoforms...more
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding seventeen terms from five patents. A Markman hearing took place on October 6, 2016. The disputed technology relates to code sequencing in wireless communication...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