Midyear Banking Review
If I won my case, why do I need to worry about an appeal?
One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de...more
In early 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard of review for patent claim construction with its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (Teva I). Previously, the U.S. Court of...more
In considering a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees in view of the Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness standard for finding an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (IP Update Vol. 17, No. 5), the U.S. Court of Appeals...more
Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference) - Two days ago, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit in Shire v. Watson again affirmed its reversal of the...more
Addressing the issue of de novo versus differential claim construction review post-Teva, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case where de novo review...more
The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more
The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more
The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more
Recently, the Supreme Court changed the standard of review the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing district court claim construction decisions in patent cases. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the standard of review of factual findings by the trial court in construing patent claims. The Court ruled that factual findings in the context of...more
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided a narrow but important issue of appellate jurisdiction in cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Case No. 13-854), which changed the level of deference the Federal Circuit must show to district court claim...more
On Jan. 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision setting forth a new standard for appellate review of a district court’s claim construction ruling. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op., 574...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court revised the standard of review used by the Federal Circuit for nearly twenty years in reviewing claim construction rulings, replacing a de novo standard...more
This week, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must apply a deferential “clear error” standard of review to any finding of fact underlying a district court’s...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S.__ (2015), holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error" standard when...more
Supreme Court Building #3It has escaped almost no one's notice that the Supreme Court has spent the past decade or so being much more involved in patent law than in preceding twenty years. Evident but perhaps less discussed...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review of issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
In a recent case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Et Al. V. Sandoz, Inc. Et Al., the Supreme Court of the United States clarified that subsidiary issues of fact determined by a District Court during patent claim construction...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for some deference in the claim construction standard of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court kicked 2015 off with an intellectual property bang, issuing two important rulings earlier this week. Both decisions focus on the facts underpinning intellectual property disputes—who decides them and...more