On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...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
Case Name: Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-0823-CFC-JLH, 2021 WL 3886418 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2021) (Connolly, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vasostrict® (vasopressin); U.S. Patents...more
In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining...more
As post-Actavis antitrust litigation over so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements proceeds, courts continue to provide further illumination about what evidence a private plaintiff would need to offer to survive summary...more
We pointed out in a recent article that, based on recent decisions by the Courts of Appeals for the First and Third Circuits, private antitrust plaintiffs seeking damages from so-called “reverse-payment” settlement agreements...more
The Supreme Court could issue its decision in the Amgen v. Sandoz biosimilar patent dance case any day now. Last week I participated in a panel discussion with industry stakeholders considering how the decision might–or might...more
Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement in an effort to support the collection of enhanced damages from an infringer. Typically, if there was willful infringement the damages were enhanced and often...more
Allergan is typically the patent holder in these types of disputes, however, it recently successfully played the role of petitioner in an IPR against 1474791 Ontario Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,806,251 covering the use of...more
A recent order from the District of Massachusetts sheds light on how the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics is being interpreted by the district courts. The Memorandum and Order by...more
The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more
Section 284 of The Patent Act provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Under Seagate, to be entitled to enhanced damages under § 284, a patent...more
Patent owners will more likely seek enhanced damages; accused infringers no longer insulated by “attorney’s ingenuity” after the fact. Summary - The Federal Circuit’s 2007 Seagate decision raised the bar for...more
Although under the Patent Act, “a court may increase the damages [for patent infringement] up to three times,” 35 U.S.C. § 284, enhanced damages awards are infrequent. For nearly a decade, the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 USC § 284, finding that both the substantive requirement for...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Halo Electronics, decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., in which the Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test and established a...more
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more
In a decision denying the patent owner’s request for rehearing, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) explained that when instituting an inter partes review (IPR) on obviousness grounds, a petitioner must only...more
Addressing the presumption of validity in ex parte re-examinations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that the presumption of validity does not apply to patents under reexamination in the U.S....more