News & Analysis as of

Stare Decisis Patent Litigation

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Alternative Reasoning for Supreme Court's Life Sciences Subject Matter Eligibility Jurisprudence

Last week, IP Law360 published an erudite and provocative article by Joseph Matal and his colleagues regarding the Supreme Court's recent subject matter jurisprudence in the context of earlier decisions in the 19th and early...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Oral Argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the issue of assignor estoppel. As a reminder, the case arose in an infringement suit over U.S. Patent Nos. 6,782,183 and...more

White & Case LLP

Kisor Deference: The New Judicially-Driven Auer Deference

White & Case LLP on

A divided Supreme Court changed the landscape of administrative law in a recent decision, Kisor v. Wilkie. In Kisor, a slim majority declined to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., Auer v. Robbins and related cases,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, Appeal No. 2017-1842 (March 7, 2018) - In Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Maintains Licensing Status Quo in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

A bedrock principle of U.S. patent law is that the patent grant comprises a quid pro quo. In exchange for a limited term of exclusivity (presently, twenty years from the earliest filing date), the patented invention is placed...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Nautilus Standard Sinks Dow Patents

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

A Royalty By Any Other Name: Post-Expiration Payments After Kimble v. Marvel

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Patent holders and accused infringers will need to continue being creative in drafting license agreements after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimble v. Marvel, No. 13-720, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067, at *6 (June 22,...more

BakerHostetler

Kimble v. Marvel Changes How Patent Licenses Should Be Drafted and Also Diligenced in Transactions

BakerHostetler on

In 1990, Stephen Kimble obtained a patent for a toy that allowed children and adults to shoot “webs” from the palms of their hands. Kimble met with the president of Marvel Enterprises, Marvel Entertainment’s predecessor, to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Intervening Reissue Still Bound by Earlier Claim Construction - ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.

In a decision invalidating reissue patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the law-of-the-case doctrine and mandate rule, finding that the reissue claims...more

Baker Donelson

Supreme Court Leaves Post-Patent Expiration Royalty Rule in Place

Baker Donelson on

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC upheld the longstanding Brulotte rule that a patent owner cannot continue to receive royalties for sales made after its patent expires. In a 6-3 decision,...more

10 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