On November 20, 2019, the Federal Court (FC) issued its reconsideration decision on the quantum of damages owed by Apotex for its infringement of eight Eli Lilly process patents related to the antibiotic cefaclor: Eli Lilly...more
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
This post is a part of a monthly series summarizing notable activity in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including short summaries of substantive orders....more
On August 16, 2019, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co.'s ("SVC") motion for reconsideration of the court's September 2018 summary judgment decision, and, on August 21, 2019, the...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1835-RGA (D.Del. June 24, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-275-LPS (D.Del. June 12, 2019), the Court granted...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in T-JAT Systems 2006 LTD. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE) et al., Civil Action No. 16-581-RGA (D.Del. January 29, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for...more
Rule 36 is a single sentence affirmance. Yet to explain the impact of a Rule 36 decision on later filed cases, the Court needed to issue a 7-page precedential decision. In Virnetx v Apple the Court held Rule 36 creates...more
On November 23, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) allowed in part Apotex’s appeal of a decision awarding Eli Lilly over $100 million for Apotex’s infringement of eight process patents related to the antibiotic cefaclor:...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Nox Medical EHF v. Natus Neuorology Inc., Civil Action No. 15-709-RGA (D.Del. December 7, 2018), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration upon...more
The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c),...more
After having its complaint for patent infringement dismissed for failure to state a claim and being denied its request to file an amended complaint in the Middle District of Georgia, Disc Disease Solutions turned to the...more
In two recent cases, the Federal Circuit addressed the role of factual questions in resolving patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first case was Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and the second was Aatrix Software v. Green...more
On November 29, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s ("Seoul Viosys") motion for reconsideration of the Court's claim construction ruling....more
On July 12, 2017, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted a motion for reconsideration by Intellectual Ventures II L.L.C. (“IV”) of the Court’s prior Order of April 28, 2017. At the time of the motion, the only patent at...more
Before 2011, the ITC routinely found violations of Section 337 based on the infringement of method claims through a respondent’s own use of an article post-importation. This changed when the ITC issued its Opinion in Certain...more
Stark, C. J. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling denying the motion to strike three defenses is denied. Plaintiffs have failed to show reconsideration is warranted. There has been no change in...more
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to reconsider its denial of transfer is denied. Defendant requests the court to reconsider its decision not to transfer this case in light of the Federal Circuit opinion in In re...more
Plaintiff’s motion is not directed at the court’s decision to stay an injunction but rather at the amount and manner of payment of the royalty rate to be paid by defendants pending the outcome of administrative proceedings. ...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Addressing the U.S. Patent Office’s (USPTO) discretion in connection with patent term adjustments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the USPTO acted within its discretion in...more
Addressing for the first time whether a patent term adjustment in a parent application is applicable to continuing applications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment...more