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 98

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

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

Eighth Circuit says pleadings can be filed under seal, but needs more justification

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 21 2013

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a federal district court did not abuse its discretion in sealing an antitrust complaint

SCOTUS to consider what new evidence may be introduced in Section 145 proceeding

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether an unsuccessful patent applicant may introduce new evidence in a civil action filed under 35 U.S.C. 145 against the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where the evidence could have been presented to the agency in her patent application

Malpractice claim based on patent application belongs in federal court

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

A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that (i) it had jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court order dismissing claims of fraud filed against lawyers who allegedly mishandled the plaintiff’s patent application and (ii) because the statute of limitations was tolled while related malpractice litigation was pending before a California state court, the lawsuit was timely filed in federal court

Federal Circuit finds no limitation on new evidence in civil patent actions filed in district court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 18 2010

A divided en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that patent applicants who are dissatisfied with a Board of Patent Appeals (Board) determination and decide to pursue their claims in federal court under 35 U.S.C. 145, face no limitations on the right to introduce new evidence other than those pertaining to all civil actions under federal evidentiary and procedural rules

U.S. Supreme Court says new evidence allowed in Section 145 proceeding

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 19 2012

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., ruling that methods for determining an optimal drug dosage to treat certain autoimmune diseases were not patent eligible, a federal court in the District of Columbia similarly found that claims for “Systems, Methods and Computer Program Products for Guiding the Selection of Therapeutic Treatment Regimens” are patent-ineligible

JPML rules patent law reforms do not limit its authority to consolidate cases

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 17 2012

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has determined that reforms adopted under the America Invents Act (AIA) do not limit its authority to centralize litigation filed in federal courts for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings

USPTO issues memo interpreting Mayo v. Prometheus labs for patent examiners

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 12 2012

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a memorandum to its patent examining corps to communicate the agency’s 2012 interim procedure for a subject-matter eligibility-analysis of process claims involving laws of nature, in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012

Parties to gene patent dispute change course by seeking U.S. Supreme Court review

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

After filing petitions for rehearing before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel that split over whether genetic discoveries can be patented, the parties have apparently changed course and indicated their intent to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review