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

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 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 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 court addresses spoliation issues on remand in Hynix v. Rambus

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

On remand from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal district court in California has reversed its determination that Rambus, Inc. did not spoliate evidence by shredding hundreds of boxes in the months preceding its implementation of a strategy to aggressively protect its technology patents

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

Patentability of medical treatment claims to be heard by U.S. Supreme Court

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that methods for determining the optimal dosage of thiopurine drugs used to treat gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101

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

Federal Circuit vacates contempt sanctions against counsel in patent dispute

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

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a district court in California erred by failing to consider issues of fairness when it (i) determined that pre-litigation disclosure of a letter protected by attorney-client privilege waived discovery beyond the four corners of the letter; and (ii) entered contempt sanctions against the law firm which authored the letter and failed to comply with discovery orders relating to the letter’s subject matter in a patent dispute between the law firm’s client and the company to which the letter had been disclosed

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