Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 94
Federal Circuit applies Gunn, rules false statement about patent claim belongs in state court
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 6 2013
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a dispute over allegedly false statements about patents did not raise a substantial question
Science publisher claims submission of prior art to USPTO involves copyright infringement
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 15 2012
A New Jersey-based publishing company has filed copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts in two states against law firms that submitted citations to or copies of copyrighted articles from scientific journals to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with their clients’ patent applications
Federal Circuit applies patent issuance date to laches claim in inventorship correction suit
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 6 2012
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 accrues when the patent issues and not when the allegedly omitted inventors purportedly knew or should have known that they were not named inventors on the patent application
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 addresses pleading standards for patent infringement claims
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- May 2 2013
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a federal district court erred by relying on an incorrect pleading standard in dismissing
Myriad litigants seek rehearing, stalling case before Federal Circuit panel
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- September 22 2011
Court watchers were reportedly surprised that both sides to litigation involving the patentability of genetic discoveries filed petitions for a rehearing before the divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel that issued a ruling on the matter in July 2011
Law firm targeted by science publisher answers copyright infringement complaint
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- May 3 2012
The law firm that was sued for copying and disseminating copyrighted articles from scientific journals for submission with its clients’ patent applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has filed its response to the copyright infringement claims
AIPLA amicus brief urges Scotus to keep patent malpractice suits in state court
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 6 2012
In an amicus brief, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) urges the U.S. Supreme Court to scale back the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ view of jurisdiction over state-law claims that involve patent-law issues
Legal malpractice arising from patent suit belongs in state court, says SCOTUS
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 21 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined in a unanimous decision that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim arising
Long-running GORE-TEX graft patent dispute fractures Federal Circuit panel
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 1 2012
A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has upheld a jury verdict of patent validity and willful infringement and affirmed a district court’s decision to enhance the damages verdict, thus upholding an award in excess of $371 million and an additional award of $19 million in costs and attorney’s fees
