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

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

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 explores when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable” for spoliation purposes

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 19 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has issued rulings in companion patent-infringement cases involving the alleged spoliation of documents; at issue was a determination as to when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable," thus triggering a document-preservation duty

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

Fractured Myriad Genetics ruling follows SCOTUS remand

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

Ruling that one plaintiff had standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to the patent eligibility of certain genetic discoveries, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has once again reversed in part and affirmed in part a lower court’s determination that isolated DNA molecules and methods of comparing molecules to determine whether a patient’s genes have mutations that could cause breast and ovarian cancer were not patent eligible

Myriad Genetics calls on Scotus to reject petition from ruling finding DNA molecules patent-eligible

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 15 2012

According to Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court should not grant review in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Details about the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision on remand from the lawsuit’s previous sojourn before the U.S. Supreme Court appear in Issue 41 of this Bulletin

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

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

Federal Courts of Appeals conflict over validity of pay-for-delay deals

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 2 2012

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in mid-July that found “any payment from a patent holder to a generic patent challenger who agrees to delay entry into the market must be treated by a factfinder as prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade,” thus supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) view that pay-for-delay deals that settle patent disputes between name-brand pharmaceutical companies and their generic drug competitors violate antitrust law