IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more
On January 24, in Steuben Foods, Inc v. Shibuya Hoppman Corporation, the Federal Circuit found that Steuben had made a compelling argument that the common law Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents (RDOE) did not survive the 1952...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp., Appeal No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit addressed an “anachronistic exception, long mentioned but...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
On 2 March, the UK Supreme Court heard the arguments in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, the latest in a growing line of international jurisprudence grappling with issues raised by the use of...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
On March 8, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Apotex’s claims against Eli Lilly (Lilly) under the Statute of Monopolies, Trademarks Act, and common law conspiracy relating to Canadian Patent No. 2,041,113...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that an artificial intelligence (AI) software system cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application because the Patent Act requires an “inventor” to be a natural...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2021-2347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022) - In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit answered a question that had long occupied the musings...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), holding that the statutory language authorizing so-called “C-delay” patent...more
The Patent Act allows anyone to try to initiate an inter partes review (IPR), which is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging one or more claims of a patent. Any such challenge may be based...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinion: Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801: Under the Patent Act, an adverse decision by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) can be appealed...more
In 2018 we reported on a number of developments in life sciences IP and regulatory law. Our most-read articles were: #1 a June update on biosimilars (authored by Urszula Wojtyra); #2 a “live” summary chart of Vanessa’s Law...more
The Supreme Court recently answered the question whether a patent owner can collect damages caused by an infringer’s sales outside the U.S. Federal law typically reaches only conduct within the country, but the justices made...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more
Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more
On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)....more
On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more
A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more