News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Patent Infringement › Intellectual Property Protection

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Section 337 Now Viable for “Mere Importers” After Federal Circuit’s Lashify Decision

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

For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Patent Eligibility: The Call for Supreme Court Clarity and for an End to Summary Affirmances

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again been urged to revisit 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligibility. Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (AED) filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the Federal...more

Haug Partners LLP

The Sole Meaning of “Solely”: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari on Edward Life Sciences v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and Permits...

Haug Partners LLP on

This month the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and in doing so, seemingly indicated its support for a broad interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

A POSA’s Motivation Is Not Required To Be the Same as the Inventor’s in Evaluating Obviousness

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP on

In its first precedential opinion of 2025, Honeywell v. 3G Licensing, No. 2023-1354, the Federal Circuit held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) needs not to have the same motivation as the inventor in an...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Is the Federal Circuit Breathing Life Back Into False Patent Marking Claims?

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | August 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, February 2024: Supreme Court Passes on Fintiv Challenge, Parallel IPR/District Court Litigation, First Precedential...

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: SCOTUS Won’t Hear Challenge to PTAB’s Fintiv Rule- The U.S. Supreme...more

Knobbe Martens

USPTO Says Wands Still Controls Enablement Analysis Post-Amgen

Knobbe Martens on

On January 9, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for its patent examiners when evaluating compliance with the enablement requirement in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - July 2023 #4

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-2217, 2023-1021 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent case this week, the Court considered questions...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Uncertainty Ahead if Design Patent Obviousness Test is Abrogated by en banc CAFC

Quarles & Brady LLP on

In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has granted a petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the test for determining obviousness of design patents has been overruled by the...more

Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC

Enablement Unchanged: Amgen v. Sanofi and the Future of Software Patents

Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC on

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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Axinn IP Update: Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Skinny Label Case, but the Impacts from GSK v. Teva Continue

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP on

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, locking in the Federal Circuit’s second panel decision (hereafter “GSK v. Teva”), which held that Teva’s attempted...more

Knobbe Martens

Medical Device Patentee Petitions Supreme Court Regarding On-Sale Bar and Price Quotes

Knobbe Martens on

A medical device patentee has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to save his design patent, related to an introducer sheath handle, from invalidity based on application of the “on-sale” bar, which prohibits patenting an invention...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

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

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2021

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

[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more

Jones Day

PTAB Details Interim Procedure for Requesting Arthrex Director Review

Jones Day on

On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision.  This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more

Weintraub Tobin

Supreme Court Update: SCOTUS Denies Review Of Two Highly Watched IP Cases

Weintraub Tobin on

The Supreme Court recently denied petitions for certiorari in two of the most highly watched intellectual property cases before the Court. Those cases were Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and The Moodsters...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Denies Another Certiorari Petition on Doctrine of Equivalents

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

GE Denied

Troutman Pepper Locke on

General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, fka United Technologies Corporation, Case No. 19-1012. On February 24, 2020, we reported on GE’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court....more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Supreme Court Won’t Take Up Patent Eligibility for Medical Diagnostics

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

The cloud of uncertainty over patent eligibility of patents for medical diagnostic methods remains. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to revisit patent eligibility under its two-step Mayo test when it...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Supreme Court Denies Review In Three Section 101 Cases

Troutman Pepper Locke on

On January 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the following cases...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Cert. Roundup

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

The American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233....more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Cert. Roundup: Romag’s Opening Brief: Imposing a Willfulness Requirement to Recapture Profits is Inconsistent with Statute,...

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233. As set forth in our previous blog post, Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”) seeks to have the Court...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Declines to Address the Question of Article III Standing to Appeal a Final Written Decision from the PTAB

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more

Hogan Lovells

U.S. + Germany Patent Update – July 2018

Hogan Lovells on

The prominent state of patent litigation in the United States and Germany is due not only to the size of its markets, but also to a recent increase in hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent...more

66 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide