IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
Federal courts continue to grapple with whether profit disgorgement for design patent infringement is a legal remedy for juries or an equitable remedy for judges, an issue the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has...more
Our Patent Case Summaries provide a weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial...more
The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under §...more
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the “very demanding standard” of judicial correction of erroneous wording of a patent claim. Background - Canatex Completion Solutions owns U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122. This patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision finding claims directed to cladribine regimens for treating multiple sclerosis unpatentable as obvious....more
In a recent patent infringement case, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) awarded attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act because the case was “exceptional,” but denied fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more
On January 24, in Steuben Foods, Inc v. Shibuya Hoppman Corporation, the Federal Circuit found that Steuben had made a compelling argument that the common law Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents (RDOE) did not survive the 1952...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp., Appeal No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit addressed an “anachronistic exception, long mentioned but...more
The Federal Circuit determined that if a company misleads consumers about the nature of a product by making false patent marking claims, it can be held liable under the Lanham Act. False marking claims under the Lanham Act...more
On June 28, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) requested the public’s views on the current state of the common law experimental use exception to patent infringement and whether legislative action...more
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - SANHO CORP. v. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC. [OPINION] (2023-1336, 7/31/24) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll) - Dyk, J. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision...more
Kilpatrick’s Ted Mayle and Kevin Bell recently presented “What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages” at the ACC Colorado In-House Counsel Forum. With reports of nine-figure jury awards in patent cases being...more
It’s never a bad time for companies holding U.S. patents to assess their patent marking strategy and compliance. Patent marking is often neglected or relegated to the marketing team, but it shouldn’t be. Whether what and how...more
Eli Lilly v Teva, Pharmascience, Riva, Apotex, Mylan (tadalafil, CIALIS) – Following a summary trial, Lilly’s infringement actions were dismissed: composition claims directed to “a physiologically acceptable salt” of...more
On December 4, 2023, the Federal Court issued its public judgment and reasons in two patent infringement actions pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”) and two patent...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in the case of Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, et al., No. 21-757. After a nine-year saga, beginning when Amgen sued Sanofi for allegedly...more
In a unanimous opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court held that two functional genus patent claims were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 In doing so, it affirmed both the Federal Circuit’s previous decision...more
Following the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision in 2014, patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has been increasingly invoked in early motion practice. In Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The Patent Act requires patentees to mark their products with the numbers of any patents that cover that product. Put differently, if you produce a product that would infringe one of your patents, you must mark that product...more
On November 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen’s petition to review the “enablement requirement” of Section 112 of the Patent Act. See generally Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (U.S. 2022). The Court’s decision will...more
In Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 21-2347, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Patent Act, an “inventor” must be a natural person. Therefore, an AI system cannot be an inventor. ...more