Source: https://www.iplitigationcurrent.com/category/patents/
Timestamp: 2019-03-18 19:39:23
Document Index: 777237486

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 42', '§ 271', '§ 1391', '§314']

Patents | IP Litigation Current
Posted By Daniel Rose on 4 March 2019 Posted in § 101; Invalidity; Patents
Subject matter eligibility jurisprudence under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been in flux in recent years, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On February 26, 2019, the Federal Circuit in University of Florida Research Foundation v. General Electric (available at: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1284.Opinion.2-26-2019.pdf ) held that the challenged claim(s) directed to … Continue reading this entry
Tags: Federal Circuit, Subject Matter Eligibility, University of Florida Research Foundation v. General Electric, USPTO
Many patent practitioners assume that non-practicing entities cannot obtain permanent injunctions in patent cases. This is attributed to the belief that NPEs fail the four-factor test set out by the Supreme Court in eBay. Given that belief, it is surprising for some to learn that a recent decision from the Northern District of California resurrected … Continue reading this entry
Practitioners should be aware that challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR got even harder after a recent Federal Circuit decision. While the Supreme Court has already made clear that challenges to denial of an institution decision can only happen in very specific circumstances, the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in In … Continue reading this entry
Posted By Bradley Roush on 16 August 2018 Posted in Inter Partes Review; Patents; PTAB; Supreme Court
On June 28, 2018, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY-4), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48) introduced H.R. 6264, the “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018.” The bill ambitiously seeks to curtail or repeal numerous provisions of the 2011 America Invents Act (“AIA”) as well as certain recent Supreme Court cases. The bill calls … Continue reading this entry
Tags: America Invents Act (“AIA”), Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018
Practitioners may not realize that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has a rule expressly providing the ability to disqualify counsel. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(d) (“A panel of the Board may disqualify counsel for cause after notice and opportunity for hearing. A decision to disqualify is not final for the purposes of judicial … Continue reading this entry
In Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s application of the rarely relied on “printed matter doctrine” to conclude that claims directed to a method for providing to a medical provider nitric oxide gas (“NO”) along with “information” concerning i) a recommended … Continue reading this entry
Posted By Ruben J. Rodrigues on 22 June 2018 Posted in Damages; Infringement; Patents; Supreme Court
Today, in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. __ (June 22, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled that recovering foreign lost profits attributable to domestic acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes. In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that the “focus” … Continue reading this entry
Tags: Extraterritoriality, Lost Profits, Offshore Infringement, Patent Damages, SCOTUS, Seismic Surveys
Posted By George E. Quillin and Michael R. Houston on 14 June 2018 Posted in CAFC Opinions; Patents; PTAB; Supreme Court
In a quartet of recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that SAS Institute extends beyond mandating the inclusion of all claims when trial is instituted, and extends to all grounds as well. These decisions confirm that the Board’s “binary choice” is to institute (or not) on all claims challenged in a petition, as well … Continue reading this entry
Tags: Federal Circuit, SAS Institute
Posted By Jeffrey Costakos on 9 May 2018 Posted in CAFC Opinions; Patents
The Federal Circuit today in In re HTC Corp., Misc. 2018-130 (May 5, 2018), followed the holding of the Supreme Court in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), that venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district. In so doing, the court found that recent amendments … Continue reading this entry
In patent litigation, assignor estoppel is a common law doctrine that can dramatically alter the rights of both parties involved – when applicable it is dispositive on the issue of patent validity. However, despite the import of this doctrine, there is a lack of clarity of how and to whom this doctrine applies and even … Continue reading this entry
There are many advantages to pursuing relief for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC) compared to U.S. district court, but one that receives little attention is the success rate for complainants (plaintiffs). The rate has been climbing for years and reached nearly 90% for cases decided on the merits in 2017. With such … Continue reading this entry
Posted By Debra Lange and David Hickerson on 26 March 2018 Posted in Injunctions; ITC
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), injunctions are an infrequent remedy for patent infringement in federal district courts. Yet, an exclusion order – the functional equivalent of an injunction – is the remedy issued when a violation of Section 337 is found by the International Trade … Continue reading this entry
Tags: Domestic Industry, EPROMs, Injunctions, ITC, Public Interest
Posted By Joel Diamond and Kimberly Dodd on 13 March 2018 Posted in Patents; Procedure
In 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s longstanding interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in patent infringement actions against domestic companies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400; see TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). Under TC Heartland, a domestic corporation can only be sued in its … Continue reading this entry
Tags: foreign corporations, patents, personal jurisdiction, venue
In Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., No. 2016-2746 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2018), the Federal Circuit considered whether it or a regional circuit had jurisdiction over an appeal of a case raising only Walker Process antitrust claims. The court held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 … Continue reading this entry
Posted By Matthew A. Ambros on 16 February 2018 Posted in CAFC Opinions; Inter Partes Review; Patents; PTAB
At this point, several cases have examined the appealability of the Board’s institution decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2015) (holding that 35 U.S.C. §314 barred judicial review of the Board’s determinations . . . to initiate an inter partes review … Continue reading this entry
In Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-3654 (D.N.J.) the district court recently denied Fresenius’s motion to dismiss Fera’s antitrust counterclaims, but simultaneously decided to sever and stay those claims pending resolution of the patent infringement claims. Additionally, the court denied Fresenius’s motion to stay the patent infringement claims … Continue reading this entry
Posted By Rebecca J. Pirozzolo-Mellowes and Liane Peterson on 30 May 2017 Posted in CAFC Opinions; Doctrine of Equivalents; Preliminary Injunction
In Mylan Institutional LLC, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al., Case No. 2017-1645, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction as to one of three patents-in-suit, while finding that there was error in granting the injunction with respect to the other two patents. The patents-in-suit related to ISB, … Continue reading this entry