News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement

Baker Donelson

A Patent Holder's Silence Can Be Deafening: Key Takeaways from Fraunhofer v. Sirius XM

Baker Donelson on

In Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00184-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2026), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that Sirius XM...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Federal Circuit Provides Path to Written Description and Enablement for Patents Related to Methods of Using a Well-Known Class of...

On April 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court) issued a precedential decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lily and Company, determining that the claims of Teva’s U.S....more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 1, 2026

Alston & Bird on

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

McDermott Will & Schulte

Lost in the constellation: Result-oriented claims miss the mark under § 101

Addressing issues related to patent eligibility, infringement, and damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, finding that certain result-oriented claims were...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Hikma v. Amarin: The Amici Speak – Part III

In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Hikma v. Amarin: The Amici Speak – Part II

In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf...more

NovoTech Patent Firm

Why Your Patent Portfolio Isn't Giving You IP Leverage

NovoTech Patent Firm on

We all like big numbers. A patent portfolio with hundreds or thousands of patents looks impressive on paper. It sounds good in pitch decks. It makes for nice PR....more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Reverses JMOL of Invalidity of Teva’s Ajovy® Patents

Venable LLP on

On April 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) finding Teva’s asserted patent claims invalid for lack of written description and...more

Stinson LLP

Western District of Texas Splits the Difference on Patent Eligibility

Stinson LLP on

On April 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a split ruling in VE Opening LLC v. Sprinklr, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01736-ADA, that underscores a critical lesson for patent owners and...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Hikma v. Amarin: The Amici Speak – Part I

In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf...more

Knobbe Martens

A Cure for Written Description and Enablement Headaches: Prior Art

Knobbe Martens on

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - Before Prost, Cunningham, and Andrews. Appeal from the United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts. A functionally defined genus recited in...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Omitted Inventor Renders Patent Invalid when Section 256 Correction Is Not Available in Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger...

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that two Fortress patents were invalid because they omitted a coinventor who could not be located and added under the...more

Hogan Lovells

Supreme Court hears ‘skinny labeling’ drug patent infringement case

Hogan Lovells on

On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in the Hikma v. Amarin “skinny labeling” case, which considers the pleading standard for claims of “active inducement” of patent infringement when a generic drug is...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.: Induced Infringement and “Skinny...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, a case that could reshape the landscape of pharmaceutical patent enforcement and generic drug...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Hikma v. Amarin at the Supreme Court: The Parties’ Opening Briefs – Part II

In recent years, the Federal Circuit has, with varying levels of agreement, considered what behavior by generic drugmakers constitutes inducement of infringement regarding so-called “off-label” prescribing for indications not...more

Polsinelli

Design Patents Expand for Digital Products While Courts Signal New Limits on Enforcement

Polsinelli on

Key Takeaways - The USPTO has expanded design patent protection for digital and emerging technologies. Its March 2026 guidance confirms that graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, and designs in AR/VR, holograms and...more

Knobbe Martens

Factual Stipulations May Simplify Discovery, but Also Help Plaintiff Navigate Difficult Issues of Fact and Law

Knobbe Martens on

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORP. - Before Moore, Chen, and Kleeh.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement by...more

Knobbe Martens

Invisible but Invalidating: Undisclosed Functionality Still Triggers On-Sale Bar

Knobbe Martens on

DEFINITIVE HOLDINGS, LLC v. POWERTEQ LLC - Before Moore, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A third-party sale of a product embodying the claimed invention before the...more

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

Hidden Leverage in Plain Sight – Reassessing Mature Patent Value in the Current Enforcement Environment

Historically, some operating companies treated older patents in their portfolio as background assets—useful for defensive signaling, occasionally relevant in licensing discussions if a particular technology later found...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Federal Circuit Issues Mixed Ruling on Patent Eligibility for Non-Uniform Constellation Technology

In a significant decision for telecommunications patent law, a panel of the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc, vacating a summary judgment of patent eligibility for...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Teva v. Lilly: Limiting Amgen’s Reach on Written Description and Enablement

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

The opinion in Teva Pharms. Int’l GMBH v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 24-1094 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2026) creates a distinction for written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) when the claims in dispute are...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Teva v. Lilly -- Clarifies Written Description of Method Claims Involving A Genus

The Federal Circuit recently clarified its written description jurisprudence concerning claims directed to methods of using a genus. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 24-1094, 2026 WL 1025802 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16,...more

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP

How Does Orange Book Delisting Affect Ongoing Hatch-Waxman Litigation?

In the wake of the Federal Circuit’s 2024 Orange Book delisting decision in Teva v. Amneal, Hatch-Waxman practitioners have been left to grapple with several unanswered questions. Although the decision clarified what is...more

A&O Shearman

UPC: Take proactive steps to protect your confidential information and trade secrets

A&O Shearman on

On March 18, 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (the UPC) dismissed an appeal over the protection of information. The UPC Court of Appeal confirmed its previous approach: there is no implicit limitation...more

Miller Johnson

Pokémon Go?  More like Pokémon No!  Judge “HM01s” (Cuts) Out Patent Under 101 Despite Prosecution History

Miller Johnson on

ImagineAR, Inc., v. Niantic, Inc., 2026 WL 936029 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2026) - Brushing aside a § 101 rejection overcome during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,284 (“the ’284 Patent”), District Judge Wolson granted...more

9,004 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 361

"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