Patent case: In re Juniper Networks Inc., USA
The Wako federal district court abused its discretion in fining that The Western District of Texas was a more convenient form that the Northern District of California. The federal district court in...
View ArticleAIPPI Panel Session 10: Anti-suit & anti-anti-suit injunctions
This short post reports on one of the Panel Sessions at this year’s AIPPI Congress which took place virtually for the second year in a row. The tenth panel session of the AIPPI Online World Congress...
View ArticleInconsistent Statements to USPTO and FDA May Render Patents Unenforceable
In the course of obtaining regulatory approval for a drug product in the United States, a pharmaceutical company will make numerous representations about its product in submissions to the Food and Drug...
View ArticleRecent Trends For § 112 Challenges In PGRs
In recent years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has invalidated or affirmed the invalidity of various biopharma patents under 35 U.S.C. § 112, which requires that a patent specification...
View ArticleTime for SEP consultations in UK and US
The UK and US governments have recently launched calls for views regarding their SEP and FRAND policies, in order to understand the opinions of all the stakeholders, such as patent owners,...
View ArticlePatent case: Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA
A person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine the effective dose of the active ingredient in Tecfidera from the original patent specification. A West Virginia federal district court’s...
View ArticleIs Work From Home a U.S. Venue Work-Around?
As we begin year three of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of the Omicron variant has caused many workers, who had returned to the office during summer and fall 2021, to revert to working from home....
View ArticlePatent case: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., USA
The Board incorrectly interpreted Section 311(b)’s “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” to encompass applicant admitted prior art, but such art may be relevant as an admission....
View ArticlePatent case: Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., USA
Petitioner expert testimony in inter partes review of a surgical tool patent was more credible than patent owner’s expert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine...
View ArticlePatent case: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. Accord Healthcare,...
Because the patent failed to disclose the absence of a loading dose, the no-loading-dose limitation was without adequate written description support. A divided Federal Circuit panel has reconsidered...
View ArticlePatent case: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, USA
Expanding on its 2016 Cuozzo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the “no appeal” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency’s application of Section 315(b)’s time...
View ArticleLoose Lips Sink Ships: Two Recent District Court Decisions Highlight Some...
The U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to obtain discovery regarding any matter that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense. One important caveat to this general principle is that...
View ArticlePatent case: International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc, USA
The claimed methods of filtering, highlighting, and selecting portions of maps or other visual information for display had long been done by hand, and the claims failed to describe specific...
View ArticlePatent case: Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc., USA
Because prior art described a method that could execute an application on one computer server, it should have been obvious that the method could be applied to multiple servers. The Patent Trial and...
View ArticleUS and Unitary Patent: ‘Low barrier to pan-Europe rights is simply too...
The start of the Unitary Patent system ‘is a big event with big economic consequence. Europe could reconstitute their economic relevance’ around it, says John White, Special Counsel of law firm Harness...
View ArticlePatent case: Driessen v. Best Buy Co., Inc., USA
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err by declining to consider a patentee’s claim construction arguments raised for the first time at oral argument. The holder of a patent for retail...
View ArticlePatent case: In re Couvaras, USA
The combination of two well-known high blood pressure medicines did not result in unexpected patient benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a decision by the Patent...
View ArticlePatent case: Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., USA
There was no error in an inter partes review decision finding obviousness in a communication system patent because the board properly relied on materials in the record in its claim construction and...
View ArticlePatent case: Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, USA
Substantial evidence supported a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding the challenged claims were obvious. A PTAB decision finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment had shown that a...
View ArticleNokia sues Amazon over multimedia inventions
Nokia has started legal actions against Amazon in the US, Germany, India, the UK and at the Unified Patent Court for the unauthorized use of Nokia’s video-related technologies in streaming services and...
View Article
More Pages to Explore .....