A split Federal Circuit panel recently held that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) providing a defense to infringement applies if the allegedly infringing activity is “reasonably related to submitting...more
A divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that importation of two product samples into the U.S. was reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval...more
On April 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 19-cv-10099, denied Sun’s motion to dismiss Celgene’s claims that Sun’s generic Revlimid® (lenalidomide)...more
In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision finding four Acorda Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra® invalid as obvious. Acorda raised a number of...more
Case at a Glance: The Court will consider whether the text of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) imposes liability on those supplying from the United States components of a patented invention “in such a manner as to actively induce the...more
An introduction to § 271 - Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement. The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), §...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. is a cautionary tale that failure to present evidence of damages closely tied to each alternative basis of liability may result in a hollow...more
In one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents...more
In the recently decided case of Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court evaluated when a party that provides some part – but not all – of a patented invention can be liable for induced...more
Federal Circuit Remands IPR Final Decision For Inadequate Obviousness Analysis, Sidesteps Issue of Proper Claim Construction Standard - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1174, the Federal...more
Claims Lacking Details Found to be Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central Division), Polar filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings contending that...more
In reversing the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for manufacture abroad does...more
In Life Technologies v. Promega Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether supplying a single component from the United States of a multicomponent invention assembled abroad constitutes patent infringement under 35...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538, (February 22, 2017), interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), which creates liability for supplying components of multi-component patented...more
On February 22, 2017, in reversing the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for...more
In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court today reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp. involving the proper scope of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). This provision...more
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. In a substantially unanimous (7-0) ruling, the Court held that supplying a single component of a multicomponent invention for...more
The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling of infringement under 35 U.S § 271(f)(1) based on supplying from the United States a component of a patented invention. This case may...more
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this week adopted a new standard governing divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The new standard is likely to enhance...more
In a victory for holders of method patents, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision yesterday expanding the scope of direct infringement when multiple parties perform different steps of an invention. In its unanimous...more
Today, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc changed direction again on § 271(a) direct infringement and ruled that Limelight was liable for direct infringement based on substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict of...more
The Federal Circuit handed down a unanimous en banc decision today regarding the interplay between literal infringement and induced infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. On remand from a...more