We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Frederick L. Whitmer Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 12



Myriad questions with but two answers: isolated DNA is patentable subject matter but certain diagnostic method claims are patent *

USA - July 29 2011
In reversing the summary judgment of the Southern District of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held today in an opinion by Judge Lourie that claims to isolated DNA and claims for methods of screening potential cancer therapeutics were directed to patentable subject matter. 

Co-authors: Wendy Choi, Charles W. Calkins, William B. Kezer Ph.D., Leslie T. Grab, Jennifer Giordano Coltart.


What you know may hurt you, but what you try to avoid knowing may hurt just as much *

USA - May 31 2011
On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court clarified an important question of patent law, namely, the level of knowledge required of a defendant accused of inducing patent infringement.

Co-authors: William H. Boice, A. James Isbester.


Divided infringement theory knocked out of joint? *

USA - January 27 2011
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that to “use” a system for purposes of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), “a party must put the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from it.”

Co-authors: Renae A. Bailey, Theodore T. Herhold, Steven D. Moore.


25 percent rule for damages is now 100 percent dead; expert reports must now predicate damages on the specific circumstances of the case, not general, arbitrary theories *

USA - January 10 2011
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that a damage expert's arbitrary use of what had become a commonplace starting point for royalty rates in patent cases, the so-called "25 percent rule," is a "fundamentally flawed tool" for determining a reasonable royalty and "is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Co-authors: Audra A. Dial, Robert D.Tadlock, Theodore T. Herhold.


Method of treatment claims alive and well *

USA - December 20 2010
On December 17, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Prometheus v. Mayo sustaining the patentability of Prometheus’s medical treatment claims.

Co-authors: Matias Ferrario, Jamie L. Greene.


Next »