Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

A license to “use” a patented technology that can replicate itself does not necessarily give a purchaser the right to use replicated copies of the technology

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
October 31 2011

In Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, No. 10-1068 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s SJ that by planting the progeny of Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC’s genetically altered seeds, Vernon Bowman infringed several claims of Monsanto’s patents

35 U.S.C. 282 requires that an invalidity defense be proved by clear and convincing evidence, but a jury may be instructed to evaluate whether the evidence before it is materially new

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
July 26 2011

In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, No. 10-290 (U.S. June 9, 2011), the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. 282 requires that an invalidity defense be proved by clear and convincing evidence

Bayh-DoleAact does not automatically vest title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
July 26 2011

In Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 09-1159 (U.S. June 6, 2011), the Supreme Court held that the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (the “Bayh-Dole Act” or “Act”) does not automatically vest title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to such inventions

Looking ahead

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
July 26 2011

On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court granted review in both Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 601 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010

Spotlight info - May 2011

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
May 23 2011

In TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 09-1374 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2011) (en banc), the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled the two-step analysis from KSM Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1985), governing the standards for contempt proceedings in patent infringement cases

Looking ahead - May 2011

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
May 23 2011

Late last year, in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of no joint infringement, holding that Akamai Technologies, Inc. did not show that Limelight Networks, Inc.’s (“Limelight”) customers were acting as agents of Limelight when performing the steps of the claim that Limelight itself did not perform

Prudential reasons and perceived increases in efficiency cannot empower a federal court to hear a case where no case or controversy exists

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
June 30 2010

In Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., 09-1524 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Ablaise Ltd.’s (“Ablaise”) motion to dismiss Dow Jones & Company, Inc.’s (“Dow Jones”) DJ invalidity claim against U.S. Patent No. 6,295,530 (“the ’530 patent”) and affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,961,737 (“the ’737 patent”) were invalid as obvious

Foreclosure under state law may transfer patent ownership without a writing

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
September 30 2009

In Sky Technologies LLC v. SAP AG, No. 08-1606 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that Sky Technologies LLC (“Sky”) had standing to bring a patent infringement suit because patent ownership was properly transferred by operation of state foreclosure law

Proof to a scientific certainty not always required for conception

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
August 27 2009

In University of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, No. 08-1468 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that University of Pittsburgh (“Pittsburgh”) researchers Adam J. Katz and Ramon Llull completed conception of the claimed invention before Marc H. Hedrick, Prosper Benhaim, Hermann Peter Lorenz, and Min Zhu contributed their efforts

District court’s failure to construe a disputed claim term considered harmless error

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
March 31 2009

In Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., Nos. 07-1340, -1341, -1342 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2009), the Federal Circuit affi rmed the district court’s denial of (1) Defendants Medela, Inc. and Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc.’s (“Blue Sky”) motion for JMOL on obviousness; (2) Defendants’ alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness; and (3) Plaintiff Kinetic Concepts, Inc.’s motion for JMOL on infringement and its alternative motion for a new trial on infringement