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

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 137

Federal Circuit’s patent infringement ruling conflicts with USPTO re-examination on validity

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 1 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for an en banc rehearing by a medical-device patent holder which argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Board of Patent Appeals had effectively nullified a previous Federal Circuit decision on the validity of its patent

USPTO seeks to intervene in publisher’s copyright infringement suit against law firm

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2012

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has filed a motion to intervene, and an answer and counterclaim, in litigation brought by scientific-journal publishers against a law firm for alleged copyright infringement involving articles on prior art copied and submitted with its clients’ patent applications

Federal Circuit addresses personal jurisdiction in patent infringement litigation

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2012

Finding that the U.S. Supreme Court “has yet to reach a consensus on the proper articulation of the stream-of-commerce theory” of personal jurisdiction to assess whether a court has jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a patent infringement suit, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has applied its own theory, which assesses the pleadings and evidence under “any articulation of the stream-of-commerce theory,” and has determined that a district court in Wyoming properly dismissed two patent infringement lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction

Court imposes sanctions on Apple for shutting down deposition

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 16 2012

A federal court in Texas has determined that counsel for Apple had no basis for bringing to a premature close the deposition of one of its engineering managers in a lawsuit asserting VirnetX’s patent against an Apple patent application

Federal Circuit clarifies permanent injunction standard

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 20 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that, while a judgment of patent infringement and validity does not constitute a presumption of irreparable harm “as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief,” the judgment should not be ignored by the court when weighing the equities involved in deciding whether to impose a permanent injunction

French company prevails in dispute with FDA over drug-classification ruling

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

A federal court in the District of Columbia has determined that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) erred when it classified a combination drug-device product as primarily a drug, thus subjecting its French manufacturer to more burdensome regulatory requirements

Violations of discovery orders result in default judgment, monetary sanctions, potential discipline

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 18 2011

A federal court in Texas has imposed severe sanctions in a patent infringement lawsuit, due to repeated violations of its discovery orders and the creation of a fraudulent discovery-related document; a default judgment has been entered against the violator, and information about the document has been forwarded to alert the district’s chief judge “of the need to potentially take disciplinary measures” against counsel

ACLU weighs in on patentability of human genes in Myriad Genetics

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys representing the petitioners in The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398 (U.S., docketed October 1, 2012), have filed their petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court. Information about the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from which the petition has been filed appears in Issue 41 of this Bulletin

Vascular graft patent dispute heads to SCOTUS for review of heightened willful infringement standard

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 1 2012

Medical supply manufacturer W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. has filed a petition before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Federal Circuit ruling remanding to the district court a long-running patent-infringement dispute over a prosthetic vascular graft, with instructions to reconsider its denial of W.L. Gore’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement

Federal Circuit dubbed a “rogue appeals court,” seen as biased in favor of patent holders

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

Writing for Ars Technica in an article titled “How a rogue appeals court wrecked the patent system,” associate writer Timothy Lee explores the history of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that it was created in 1982 due to “concerns about the lack of uniformity in patent law that had become widespread.” With sole appellate jurisdiction over patent disputes, the court accomplished congressional goals by making patent law more uniform, but it had other side effects, according to Lee