IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
On June 28, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) requested the public’s views on the current state of the common law experimental use exception to patent infringement and whether legislative action...more
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - SANHO CORP. v. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC. [OPINION] (2023-1336, 7/31/24) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll) - Dyk, J. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision...more
On December 4, 2023, the Federal Court issued its public judgment and reasons in two patent infringement actions pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”) and two patent...more
A Federal Circuit judge, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion by the defendant for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case...more
A federal court jury in Delaware has awarded $15.1 million in damages to a company that claimed Google infringed two of its audio programming patents. The patents at issue are US Patent Nos. 6,199,076 and 7,509,178. The...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...more
Friday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its anticipated ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and affirmed the Federal Circuit's prior decision that Amgen's patent was invalid for lack of enablement. A copy of the Court's Opinion is...more
In a unanimous opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court held that two functional genus patent claims were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 In doing so, it affirmed both the Federal Circuit’s previous decision...more
Following the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision in 2014, patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has been increasingly invoked in early motion practice. In Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage...more
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
On November 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen’s petition to review the “enablement requirement” of Section 112 of the Patent Act. See generally Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (U.S. 2022). The Court’s decision will...more
Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, Appeal No. 2019-1483 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit provided what appears to be its first precedential opinion construing Section 317 of the...more
Eolas Technology filed patent infringement actions against Amazon, Google, and Walmart in the Eastern District of Texas in 2015. The asserted patent generally relates to remote computer systems that allow users at a client...more
An upcoming change in Section 83 of the German Patent Act ("PatG") will close the gap between the duration of patent infringement compared to the duration of invalidity proceedings in Germany. From May 1, 2022, onwards, the...more
The new PatG provides an exception to the general rule that injunctions result as a direct consequence of infringement for cases in which an immediate injunction would result in disproportionate hardship when weighing the...more
In patent litigation, the adequacy of proof of apportionment in reasonable royalty damage claims is often a challenging issue that is hotly contested by the parties. The Federal Circuit has recently focused on the use of...more
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 opinion, that the doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to apply, but only for an assignor’s invalidity assertion that contradicts explicit or...more
Section 287 of the U.S. Patent Act gives a patent owner the ability to recover damages for patent infringement in two ways: (1) if a patented article is marked; or (2) if actual notice of infringement has been provided. The...more
Functional claims took another hit at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The patent at issue broadly claimed a three-part chimeric antigen receptor including all scFvs that bind to any target. The Court found written...more
On July 28, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Seedling’s appeal from the Federal Court decision of Justice Grammond (2020 FC 1, previously reported), which concluded that certain claims of Seedlings' LifeCard...more
On December 24, 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision in a patent infringement action pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to silodosin (Allergan’s RAPAFLO): Allergan...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,1 the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases...more
On May 22, 2020, the Federal Court held that an action under the amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) relating to saxagliptin (ONGLYZA) would not be rendered moot by the relevant...more
SCHWENDIMANN V. ARKWRIGHT ADVANCED COATING, INC. Before Wallach, Reyna, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Summary: Exclusionary rights in a patent are a...more