In a recent decision issued in Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressed the showing that a petitioner for inter partes review must make to demonstrate that an asserted...more
Relying heavily on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of an inter partes review (IPR) petition involving the patent-in-suit, a court in the Eastern District of Virginia recently refused to let the defendant amend its...more
Despite evidence that defendants monitored plaintiffs’ product development and attempted to match its dosing intervals, the District Court of Delaware found no willful infringement because that activity took place before the...more
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...more
A recent ruling from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) highlights the critical role that collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) can play in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In a final written...more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California when it failed to consider joining the patent owner before dismissing a case in which the licensee possessed...more
6/25/2019
/ Article III ,
Dismissals ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
FRCP 19 ,
Joinder ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Remand ,
Standing ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
Transfer of Rights ,
Vacated
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) vacated its institution decision and terminated an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) based on Mylan’s prior counterclaim seeking a...more
4/15/2019
/ Counterclaims ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Joinder ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated ,
Voluntary Dismissals
SUPREME COURT CASES -
Sequenom Seeks Supreme Court Review of Diagnostic Claims Held Invalid Under § 101 -
On Monday, March 21, 2016, Sequenom, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES -
Federal Circuit Reverses $61 Million Judgment Based on Erroneous Claim Construction -
Despite the Supreme Court’s recent Teva v. Sandoz decision that factual findings by a district court...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES -
Patent Misuse is Not a Stand-Alone Cause of Action -
Plaintiffs Continental Automotive GmbH and Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (collectively Continental) filed a complaint iBiquity...more
Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Decide Non-Patent Causes of Action That Involves a Substantial, Non-Hypothetical Disputed Patent Law Issue -
On September 16, 2014, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Circuit...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES -
Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Decide Non-Patent Causes of Action That Involves a Substantial, Non-Hypothetical Disputed Patent Law Issue -
On September 16, 2014, a Federal Circuit...more