IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
On June 28, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) requested the public’s views on the current state of the common law experimental use exception to patent infringement and whether legislative action...more
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - SANHO CORP. v. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC. [OPINION] (2023-1336, 7/31/24) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll) - Dyk, J. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision...more
Kilpatrick’s Ted Mayle and Kevin Bell recently presented “What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages” at the ACC Colorado In-House Counsel Forum. With reports of nine-figure jury awards in patent cases being...more
It’s never a bad time for companies holding U.S. patents to assess their patent marking strategy and compliance. Patent marking is often neglected or relegated to the marketing team, but it shouldn’t be. Whether what and how...more
Eli Lilly v Teva, Pharmascience, Riva, Apotex, Mylan (tadalafil, CIALIS) – Following a summary trial, Lilly’s infringement actions were dismissed: composition claims directed to “a physiologically acceptable salt” of...more
On December 4, 2023, the Federal Court issued its public judgment and reasons in two patent infringement actions pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”) and two patent...more
A Federal Circuit judge, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion by the defendant for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case...more
A federal court jury in Delaware has awarded $15.1 million in damages to a company that claimed Google infringed two of its audio programming patents. The patents at issue are US Patent Nos. 6,199,076 and 7,509,178. The...more
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
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in the case of Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, et al., No. 21-757. After a nine-year saga, beginning when Amgen sued Sanofi for allegedly...more
Friday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its anticipated ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and affirmed the Federal Circuit's prior decision that Amgen's patent was invalid for lack of enablement. A copy of the Court's Opinion is...more
In a unanimous opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court held that two functional genus patent claims were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 In doing so, it affirmed both the Federal Circuit’s previous decision...more
Following the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision in 2014, patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has been increasingly invoked in early motion practice. In Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The Patent Act requires patentees to mark their products with the numbers of any patents that cover that product. Put differently, if you produce a product that would infringe one of your patents, you must mark that product...more
On November 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen’s petition to review the “enablement requirement” of Section 112 of the Patent Act. See generally Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (U.S. 2022). The Court’s decision will...more
In Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 21-2347, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Patent Act, an “inventor” must be a natural person. Therefore, an AI system cannot be an inventor. ...more
Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, Appeal No. 2019-1483 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit provided what appears to be its first precedential opinion construing Section 317 of the...more
If patent holders want to exclude others from using their invention, then they need to keep an eye on the marketplace to spot infringers. Because the metaverse opens up a new, virtual and potentially endless space where...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently confirmed in Thaler v. Vidalthat artificial intelligence (AI) agents cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent because the plain text of the Patent Act requires...more
Eolas Technology filed patent infringement actions against Amazon, Google, and Walmart in the Eastern District of Texas in 2015. The asserted patent generally relates to remote computer systems that allow users at a client...more
An upcoming change in Section 83 of the German Patent Act ("PatG") will close the gap between the duration of patent infringement compared to the duration of invalidity proceedings in Germany. From May 1, 2022, onwards, the...more
The new PatG provides an exception to the general rule that injunctions result as a direct consequence of infringement for cases in which an immediate injunction would result in disproportionate hardship when weighing the...more
In patent litigation, the adequacy of proof of apportionment in reasonable royalty damage claims is often a challenging issue that is hotly contested by the parties. The Federal Circuit has recently focused on the use of...more