News & Analysis as of

Doctrine of Equivalents Patent Litigation

McDermott Will & Emery

The Devil Is in the Details: Bioequivalence, In Vitro Testing Not Enough to Establish Infringement

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether bioequivalence data and in vitro testing can show that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) product with different immediate and delayed release portions infringed on a...more

Jones Day

Unified Patent Court: First Ruling on Equivalent Infringement

Jones Day on

The doctrine of equivalents is a staple patent law principle, addressing the tension between providing fair protection to innovative ideas and ensuring legal certainty for third parties. However, like most patent laws, the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2024

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1600, -1709 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Federal...more

Hudnell Law Group

Generalized Testimony Falls Short in Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis

Hudnell Law Group on

On October 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Nexstep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, affirming the District Court for the District of Delaware’s judgment of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Equivalence Requires Element-by-Element Proof With Linking Argument

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Expert’s “Word Salad” Testimony Not Sufficient to Support a Finding of Infringement under the...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113, 10/24/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - October 2024 #4

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, Ericsson, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et. al., Appeal No. 2024-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarified that, for an...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Key Federal Circuit Patent Rulings Impacting Your Business - Recent Rulings

Fenwick & West LLP on

In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, the Federal Circuit expanded the preclusive effect of non-infringement rulings. It ruled that prior judgments of non-infringement can prevent follow-on lawsuits involving...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

In a joint appeal of two adverse decisions from the District Court, the Federal Circuit on procedural grounds rejected an appeal from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Expert Need Not Have Acquired the Requisite Skill Level Prior to the Time of the Invention

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2024

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1884, -1886 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2024) In its only precedential patent decision last week, the Federal Circuit brought to a close a long-running dispute...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation Conference in Europe - May 29th - 30th, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Hosted by C5 Group, the 17th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will provide up-to-the-minute information and strategic insights on...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Doctrinal Lessons on the Doctrine of Equivalents

Judge Bryson's recent decision sitting by designation in Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, LLC., No. 20-984-WCB, 2024 WL 341342 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2024), provides two important reminders on the utility of an accused...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Sound the Alarm: Reasonable Royalty Apportionment Analysis Overlooks “Sleep State”

McDermott Will & Emery on

After a jury found infringement of two patents and awarded almost $2.2 billion in damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the infringement finding for one asserted patent, vacated the damages award...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Scope of Issued Patents May be Limited by Prosecution Estoppel Created in Child Cases

Cell therapy products in the U.S. are estimated to be worth approximately $4.5 billion currently and expected to grow to over $30 billion in the next ten years. As market value increases litigation is bound to heat up....more

Smith Anderson

Stroke of Genus: Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Smith Anderson on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down broad patent claims covering a “genus” of antibodies, reaffirming in a 9-0 decision that a patent must “enable” the full scope of its claims (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi). Amgen, Inc.,...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Furniture Augmented Reality Technology at the Center of Patent Infringement Dispute

Womble Bond Dickinson on

AR Design Innovations LLC v. Rove Concepts Ltd., Case no. 2:23cv310 (E.D. Texas, June 26, 2023) - Virtual and augmented reality technology increasingly is finding a place in a wide range of industries, and home...more

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC

Amgen is Not the End of Chemical Innovation

Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more

MoFo Life Sciences

Five Questions After Amgen V. Sanofi

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen v. Sanofi puts a spotlight on enablement of functionally defined claims. Future developments may shed light on a number of remaining questions for patent applicants. Here are five...more

Irwin IP LLP

Amended Complaint Gives Plaintiff a Do-Over, Not the Defendant

Irwin IP LLP on

Power Probe Grp., Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corp., 21-cv-00332 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2023) While it is accepted that filing an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint rendering it without legal effect, a defendant...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,...

The patent holder, Kyocera, filed a complaint in the International Trade Commission against Koki in Certain Gas Spring Nailer Prods. & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1082, 2020 WL 2093834 (Apr. 28, 2020). Kyocera’s...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

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

Kilpatrick

Protecting Antibody Innovations: Searching for Equivalents under The Doctrine of Equivalents —A Discussion of Teva v. Eli Lilly...

Kilpatrick on

United States courts have recently tightened the written description requirements for antibody claims. The scope of issued claims is now often limited to antibodies with specific sequences of the CDR and the heavy chain and...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. Alkem Labs., Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. Alkem Labs., Ltd., No. 20-cv-1094, 2022 WL 605746 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2022) (Goldberg, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Firvanq® (vancomycin HCl); U.S. Patents Nos. 10,493,028 (“the...more

Sunstein LLP

It’s Not Complicated: Make Sure the Technical Expert You Retain to Testify About Infringement Has Credentials That Match the Level...

Sunstein LLP on

In infringement suits, the patentee must show that each element of a patent claim is infringed either literally by an accused product or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement means the accused...more

103 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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