Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: No live controversy existed over patent claims omitted from infringement contentions prior to a...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in SIPCO, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-537-MN (D.Del. June 9, 2021), the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings...more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
On September 11, 2019, United States District J. Paul Oetken denied Defendants Tekno Products, Inc. and Max Deluxe Limited (“Max Deluxe”)’s motion for judgement on the pleadings in a patent infringement action pending in the...more
In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more
With the September 18, 2017 trial date fast approaching, the district court in Amgen v. Hospira last week denied Hospira’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of its proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit®...more
In the post-Alice world, patents that relate in any material way to financial processes or systems have come under increased attacks in the early stages of infringement litigation—as defendants aim to secure a cheap and fast...more
As we previously reported, on July 20, the Southern District of Florida granted Amgen’s motion for judgment on partial findings that the ’138 patent was not proven invalid on grounds of anticipation, lack of written...more
As we previously reported, on July 5, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) until it...more
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 13-474 - SLR, March 22, 2016 - Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on section 101 is denied....more
Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. ZTE Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 13-0009 - RGA, March 18, 2016 - Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial is denied with respect to two of...more
Coupon Patent Easily Found Invalid under § 101 - On January 12, 2016, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in a case captioned Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. Plaintiff,...more
ALJ Shaw Finds No Violation In 921 Investigation – On July 2, 2015, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw issued a 320-page Final Initial Determination On Violation And Recommended Determination On Remedy in Certain Marine...more
Although the subject matter eligibility of software patents has come under increased scrutiny since the Supreme Court issued its opinion last year in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, one Massachusetts court recently declined to...more
Last week, the Nexium district court ruled on defendants’ motions seeking judgment as a matter of law. As we previously reported in several earlier posts, In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since...more
The specificity required in a motion for judgment as a matter of law/directed verdict (“JMOL”) can present challenges to counsel as they argue motions under Rule 50 or its state-law equivalents. Halo Electronics, Inc. v....more