Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION v. LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [OPINION] (22-2217, 7/24/23) (Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll) - Lourie, J. The Court affirmed the district...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that claim preclusion doesn’t apply to allegations of induced infringement based on an earlier finding of direct infringement. The patent at issue, US Patent No. 8,206,987 titled...more
Premier forum which shapes the law, policy, and proceedings of Paragraph IV Litigation is back to New York City on April 26-27! Pharmaceutical patent practitioners from across the globe attend this flagship conference to...more
Expiration of a Patent Does Not Always Trigger Application of Phillips Standard on IPR Appeal - In Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal No. 19-1749, the Federal Circuit held that expiration of a patent...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
In a complaint filed June 14, 2016, Janssen Biotech Inc. seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Celltrion and Hospira from selling the biosimilar version of Remicade® (infliximab) that received FDA approval April 2016,...more
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (May 26, 2015) - ..Does a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid serve as a defense to charges of inducing infringement? NO - ..Inducement requires...more
Last week, in Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana determined that Eli Lilly and Company had shown by a...more
Protecting Trade Secrets in the Era of the Data Breach - The prevalence of data breaches cannot be ignored. New data breaches continue to occur one after an-other. In the first half of 2015 alone there were reports of...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement...more
Supreme Court Holds Good Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Induced Infringement - Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Supr. Ct. May 26, 2015): Pharmaceutical patents commonly include...more
In This Issue: - En Banc Federal Circuit Abandons “Strong” Presumption That a Limitation Is Not Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, Paragraph 6 - Supreme Court Rejects Belief of Invalidity Defense for Inducement in...more
Accused Infringer’s Good-Faith Belief In Invalidity No Defense To Induced Infringement - In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, the Supreme Court held a good-faith belief a patent is invalid is not a...more
In a sharply divided opinion, the Supreme Court has determined that a party may be liable for inducing the infringement of a patent even if it has a good faith belief that the patent is invalid. The decision, Commil USA, LLC...more
Six justices of the Supreme Court agree that an accused indirect infringer’s good faith belief in invalidity of a patent “will not negate the scienter required under §271(b).” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896,...more
A U.S. patent is “presumed” valid. That means a patent owner does not need to prove the patent is valid in a suit for infringement. And, as the U.S. Supreme Court just explained in Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Systems,...more
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court provided much needed guidance regarding the availability of certain defenses to claims of induced infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-896, May...more
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys, Inc. that a defendant’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of the patent-in-suit is not a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)....more
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. that an alleged infringer's belief regarding patent validity cannot be used as evidence in a defense to an induced infringement claim. In so...more
In a 6-2 decision this week, the United States Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015) held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim...more
The Decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. - On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a party’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to a claim that the party has...more
SUPREME COURT CASES - Invalidity is not a Defense to Infringement but a Defense to Liability - This week, on May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. that a defendant’s...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to an induced infringement claim. The Court also affirmed its previous holdings that an induced infringement...more
The Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. on Tuesday holding that a patent infringement defendant’s good faith belief that the patent in suit is invalid is not a defense...more