News & Analysis as of

Validity Patents

White & Case LLP

Biogen rehearing denied: Is SCOTUS the next step?

White & Case LLP on

On March 16, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Biogen’s petition for en banc review in Biogen International GmbH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Petition Denial"), in which a Federal Circuit...more

McDermott Will & Emery

One Claim Construction Error Is Enough to Trigger New Trial on Infringement

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re-affirmed that incorrect construction of even a single claim element can be grounds for a new trial on infringement. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Forum Selection Clause Prohibits Filing IPR and PGR Petitions

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a non-precedential opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of preliminary injunction requiring a licensee to withdraw its inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Persists as Standard for Claim Construction in AIA Proceedings - In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC

In a deeply divided opinion addressing the claim construction standard in post-grant America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc, leaving in...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Versata: The Federal Circuit Explains the Parameters and Appealability of CBM Proceedings

On July 9, 2015, the Federal Circuit decided its first appeal of a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review. In Versata Development Group Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., Case No. 14-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015)...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Allergan Fights Back, Files Complaint Against Venture Fund That Filed IPR Petition

Last month, Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Sales, LLC filed suit against Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC and Kevin Barnes ("FFC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that FFC attempted to extort...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

News from Abroad: Pravastatin Sodium Case, Japan Product-by-Process Claiming Practice: Supreme Court Overrules the Grand Panel of...

Product-by-process claim drafting and interpretation practice were greatly modified by the Pravastatin Sodium Case decisions (Japan Supreme Court, June 5, 2015, Second Petty Bench, case Nos. 2012(ju)1204 and 2012(ju)2658). ...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Congress Continues to Promote Patent Reform Efforts

In recent years, Congress has devoted a great deal of attention to patent reform. Those efforts led in 2011 to passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which was the most extensive revision of the patent laws in...more

Morris James LLP

Post-Trial Motions Are Denied

Morris James LLP on

The disputed invention relates to measure-through-motion technology. Defendant conceded infringement of two patents-in-suit in light of claim construction before trial. A 10-day trial was held in August, 2014. The jury...more

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

Design Patent Case Digest: Kreative Power, LLC v. Monoprice, Inc.

Decision Date: March 3, 2015 - Court: Northern District of California - Patents: D653,215 - Holding: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED - Opinion: On June 26, 2014, Kreative Power, LLC...more

Lathrop GPM

Inter Partes Review: How this year’s hot-topic could revolutionize your business

Lathrop GPM on

Inter partes review (IPR) is this year’s hot-button issue, whether in the news or on Capitol Hill. Which begs the question, what’s the fuss about IPR and what can it do for your business? ...more

McAfee & Taft

New procedures available for invalidating patents before the USPTO

McAfee & Taft on

Business executives have long struggled with whether to defend a patent infringement suit in court, try to settle the dispute for less than the cost/risk of defending it, or seek to deal with the problem patent by requesting...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Challenge to Patent Validity by a Licensee

Ladas & Parry LLP on

The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision which some commentators believe may increase the risk that patent licensees will challenge the validity of patents under which they are licensed....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents

On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline. The trio of decisions is significant because...more

Morris James LLP

Banking software patent is found to be invalid

Morris James LLP on

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity is granted; plaintiff’s motion for validity is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted; plaintiff’s motion for...more

Goodwin

Federal Circuit Provides Additional Guidance on Litigation Stays Pending USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

Goodwin on

The Federal Circuit reversed yet another denial of a motion to stay pending a USPTO post-grant trial, this time involving a case pending in the District of Delaware. In its decision,Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus...more

Troutman Pepper

Stanford Patent Found Invalid in IPR proceedings but Licensee’s IP Survives

Troutman Pepper on

In a decision this month (IPR2013-00308), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has ruled against Stanford University’s patented method for detecting Down’s syndrome and other chromosomal defects, finding all of the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Ineligible Subject Matter in One Court Is Still Ineligible in Another

McDermott Will & Emery on

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. - Addressing the issue of whether the court was bound by another court’s holding that a patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible subject...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Addresses Plethora of Issues in Affirming $19.5 Million Damage Award

McDermott Will & Emery on

SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion that broached issues of claim construction, non-infringement, willful infringement, invalidity, the legal implications of a...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

District Court Delivers Significant Blow to GS CleanTech's Patents

A recent ruling in a closely watched patent infringement case involving several patents relating to methods for processing ethanol byproducts — and specifically recovering oil from thin stillage — could significantly impact...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Adopts Broad View of Inherency Doctrine

McDermott Will & Emery on

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. - Addressing a variety of issues in a recent inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The PTAB is beginning to develop a reputation as being harsh towards patent owners and the validity of their patents. Why have patent owners struggled so much before the PTAB? Attorneys Seth Northrop and Cyrus Morton discuss...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

An Unforeseen Obstacle: Consultants Can Prevent Validity Challenges Through the Use of the Assignor Estoppel Doctrine

Imagine hiring a consultant who designs a process, only to find that the process infringes a patent invented by the same consultant owned by someone else. How much worse would it be if your use of that consultant prevented...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Annulment of Damages Awards when a Patent Subsequently Found Invalid or Partially Invalid by a Different Tribunal.

Ladas & Parry LLP on

Recent cases on each side of the Atlantic have highlighted the issues that can occur when consideration of validity is separated from that of infringement and a final determination of infringement is reached by one tribunal...more

34 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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