News & Analysis as of

Patents Disparagement

McDermott Will & Emery

The Vifor Case: Disparagement Reloaded?

McDermott Will & Emery on

On July 22, 2024, the European Commission (EC) accepted commitments proposed by Vifor Pharmaceuticals to address disparagement concerns under Article 102 TFEU. This is the EC’s first pure disparagement case and its second...more

Morgan Lewis

Disparagement Alleged in Iron Medicine Market: EU Commission Seeks Public Feedback on Company’s Proposed Commitments

Morgan Lewis on

The European Commission on April 19 opened a public consultation on commitments proposed by Vifor Pharma in response to a formal investigation into allegations of anticompetitive practices related to disparaging claims about...more

A&O Shearman

European Commission investigation into Teva’s potential abuse of dominance – misuse of patent procedures and disparagement

A&O Shearman on

On 10 October 2022, the European Commission (EC) sent a Statement of Objections to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Teva). The EC has provisionally found that Teva abused its dominant...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Walking the Jurisdictional Line: Cashing in on Federal Jurisdiction in Patent Licensing Disputes

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Johnny Cash’s famous “I Walk the Line” song draws a line emphasizing how difficult it can be to stay faithful with temptations “on the road” as the singer travels on tour. Similarly, patent license drafters and litigators can...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Clear Disavowal in Specification Can’t Be Remedied by Non-Material Change in Claims

Addressing an appeal from four related actions concerning Orange Book patents covering Suboxone® sublingual film, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments that certain generic...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Key SCOTUS Decisions in Tech – First Half 2017

Fenwick & West LLP on

Despite being short one justice for much of the year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down multiple significant decisions this past term that can unsettle long-standing legal understandings in multiple technology fields. These...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - July 2017

Supreme Court Hits Reset on Patent Venue Law in TC Heartland - In the recent TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC decision, the Supreme Court reversed nearly thirty years of patent venue law and held that a...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - July 2017

SCOTUS: For Patent Venue, Domestic Corporations ‘Reside’ Where Incorporated - Why it matters: On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC—rejecting...more

A&O Shearman

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2017

A&O Shearman on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2017

Fenwick & West LLP on

A Smooth Patch in a Rough Road? Governmental Transition and Intellectual Property - Whenever a new Congress convenes, some IP issues come to the fore while others take a back seat. Transition to a new administration in the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

2017 Intellectual Property Law Year In Review

Though politics ruled the headlines in 2016, the year still brought big changes in intellectual property law and its application, most notably in patent subject matter eligibility, inter partes review institution and appeal...more

Knobbe Martens

This Year’s Top Ten IP Cases

Knobbe Martens on

#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - December 2016

Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - June 2016

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

News of Note in IP

Each week, Sheppard Mullin brings you News of Note in IP: The latest news in the IP-related fields of technology, privacy, fashion, advertising, music, and social media, curated by our IP team. Here are some of the stories...more

WilmerHale

Scandalous, Immoral And Disparaging Patents In Light Of Tam

WilmerHale on

The Federal Circuit sitting en banc recently held in Tam that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that “may disparage” persons, institutions, or...more

King & Spalding

Intellectual Property Newsletter - January/February 2016

King & Spalding on

2015 U.S. Trademark Developments Every Food and Beverage Lawyer Should Know - In 2015, U.S. courts provided trademark practitioners with several issues to discuss and debate. Identified and summarized below are the...more

Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC

IP & Technology Newsletter: Winter 2016

In today’s business world, protecting trade secrets is of vital importance. A trade secret is anything which gives a company a competitive advantage and is kept confidential, including a design, formula, manufacturing...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - May 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Subjective Term Not Indefinite when Intrinsic Record Provides Reasonably Certain Scope - On remand from the Supreme Court, on April 27, 2015, the Federal Circuit reassessed whether...more

Proskauer - Insurance Recovery & Counseling

California Supreme Court Clarifies an Insurer’s Duty to Defend in Disparagement Cases

Advertising injury liability coverage offered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies is aimed at protecting companies against claims, often brought by competitors, alleging harm by purportedly derogatory...more

Nossaman LLP

Policyholders Fight To Preserve Precedent

Nossaman LLP on

In a case pending before the state Supreme Court, Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution Inc., S207172, it seems the entire insurance industry has lined up in an effort to convince the high court that the rules...more

BakerHostetler

Patent Watch: Forrester Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Techs., Inc.

BakerHostetler on

[P]ermitting state courts to adjudicate disparagement cases (involving alleged false statements about U.S. patent rights) could result in inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts [but] this possibility of...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

General Liability Policies May Cover Antitrust, Patent, and Other Business Litigation – Part 1

General liability insurance is frequently overlooked in business litigation. These policies, however, include coverage for “disparagement” and “malicious prosecution.” Both terms are construed broadly and may provide coverage...more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

Speaking Of . . . Insurance Coverage - Is There Coverage For Alleged “Disparagement” Of Another Company’s Product? One California...

We previously discussed the troubling issues of: a) whether your company’s insurance policy(ies) actually provides coverage for claims of IP infringement, and b) which of your policies is the one(s) you should be looking to...more

24 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