News & Analysis as of

Parent Patents

Robins Kaplan LLP

Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharms., Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharms., Ltd., Civ. No. 20-1373-LPS (D. Del. July 13, 2021) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Aczone® Gel, 7.5% (Dapsone); U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219 (“the ’219 patent”)...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Amazon the Target of Freshub Patent Family

Freshub, an emerging Smart Kitchen Commerce technology company that supports IoT based in-home grocery shopping, recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon (Amazon.com, Amazon Digital Services, Prime Now,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Case Law Beats PTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility

McDermott Will & Emery on

A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found claims directed to methods of identifying and detecting a biomarker to be directed to patent-ineligible natural law, affirming a district court decision while...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2019 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2575 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2019) - Our featured case of the week revolved primarily on the construction of a single claim term in...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Terminal Disclaimer Does Not Establish Claim Preclusion

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing claim preclusion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as barred by claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine. SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Konami Gaming, Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC (D. Nev.)

Slot Machine Patent Invalidated As Being Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter - Konami sued High 5 Games for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,096,869; 8,366,540; 8,662,810; and 8,616,955. The '869 patent, which...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Designates Informative Decisions on Discretionary Denial of Institution for Prior Art Previously Presented to the Office

Knobbe Martens on

On March 21, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions as “informative” that denied institution for presenting prior art that had been previously presented during prosecution. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In SimpleAir, Inc. v Google LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule...more

Knobbe Martens

Simpleair, Inc. v. Google, LLC.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Summary: Filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome an...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Worldwide Divisional Strategy Considerations

Dividing a single patent application into multiple patents is often essential for deriving maximum economic benefit from the disclosed inventions. When an applicant wants to protect multiple inventions disclosed in a single...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Dangers in the U.S.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. introduced even more confusion in an already confusing area of the law – namely obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting...more

Knobbe Martens

Sanofi, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC V. Watson Labs. Inc., Sandoz, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, WALLACH, and TARANTO.  Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: (1) A party may not avoid inducement based on “substantial non-infringing uses,” and (2) prosecution history...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Finds Patent Is Ineligible for Post Grant Review—Claim Submitted During Prosecution (but Canceled Before Issuance) Had...

On April 3, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute post-grant review (PGR) of U.S. Patent No. 9,291,250 (the “’250 patent”), finding that it was not eligible for PGR. The petitioner argued that...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

“Poisonous Divisionals” Poisoned In The EPO

Ladas & Parry LLP on

For the past few years there has been fear that the law on priority claims in the European Patent Office (EPO) could result in a divisional application becoming prior art against its parent if the divisional application...more

14 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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