Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: The Mechanics of Multidistrict Litigation: Streamlining Complex Cases
Employment Law Now V-106 - BREAKING OSHA ETS NEWS: Extending the Stay and Choosing a Lottery Winner
Gene Grabowski on Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices
On June 17, 2025, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed another complaint against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) under the BPCIA, alleging that Amgen’s aflibercept biosimilar, PAVBLU®, infringes U.S. Patent No. 12,331,099...more
Note: This post addresses two Federal Circuit decisions issued on January 29, 2025. Both appeals involved Plaintiff-Appellee Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the first appeal involving Defendant-Appellant Formycon AG...more
As we previously reported, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently granted Regeneron Pharmaceutical’s (“Regeneron”) motion to establish a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) for its aflibercept BPCIA litigation....more
This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more
In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, Appeals Nos. 2021-1858, -1859, -1860 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the question before the...more
Premier forum which shapes the law, policy, and proceedings of Paragraph IV Litigation is back to New York City on April 26-27! Pharmaceutical patent practitioners from across the globe attend this flagship conference to...more
The patent landscape experienced a paradigm shift with the May 2017 United States Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. In TC Heartland, venue in patent cases was narrowed to either (1) the...more
This year the District Court for the Western District of Texas is on track to experience almost a 100 percent increase in patent complaints filed compared to 2018. This significant increase is expected to continue into the...more
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip...more
Judge Stearns recently clarified the scope of an almost five-year-old multi-district patent dispute in the District of Massachusetts. Since early 2013, Judge Stearns has presided over NeuroGrafix’ allegations of patent...more
The Supreme Court recently decided TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group, 581 U. S. ____ (2017), which has changed the rules concerning where patent infringement lawsuits may be brought. Specifically, patent infringement actions...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Venue in a patent litigation is limited to the alleged infringer’s state of incorporation or where the defendant has committed infringing acts and has a regular and established place of business....more
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, unanimously holding that, for the purpose of the patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), “a domestic corporation...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent venue, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, may actually turn out to be a good thing for patentees when it comes to Section 101. But before we get to that, let’s do the...more
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, overturns almost three decades of Federal Circuit jurisprudence on the issue of where a patent holder may properly file suit. In a...more
In its decision of May 22, 2017 in Heartland v. Kraft, the United States Supreme Court held that the specific venue provisions applicable to Patent infringement (28 U.S.C. 1400 (b)) limited the courts in which a domestic...more
On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in T.C. Heartland L.L.C. v. Kraft Food Brands, L.L.C., No. 16-341 (U.S. May 22, 2017)—easily one of its most consequential rulings in patent law in several...more
For the past 27 years, plaintiffs have been able to bring patent-infringement suits against most corporations almost anywhere in the United States. So-called non-practicing entities, also known as patent “trolls,” have taken...more
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case limited patent litigation venues to a much narrower set of options. Patent venue is now limited solely to the state where the defendant is incorporated and/or states where it operates a...more
Monday, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the geography where future patent infringement suits can be filed....more
For nearly three decades, patent owners have been able to file patent infringement lawsuits in any court that had personal jurisdiction over the accused infringer. This broad approach to venue led to the rise of remote...more
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court tightened the reins on where patent infringement lawsuits may be filed. In a closely watched case, the Court reversed the decades-old Federal Circuit interpretation that permitted patent...more
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday upended the status quo for venue in patent cases. For nearly three decades, with some limitations, corporate patent infringement defendants were deemed to "reside"—and thus venue was proper—in...more
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered nearly twenty patent cases pending across six districts (including Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and the Northern and Southern districts of California) and...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics in 2013, Myriad (paradoxically to those either not paying attention or who over interpreted the scope of the Court's holding in its opinion) filed...more