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 147

Induced-infringement ruling splits en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2012

In a ruling that departs from prior case law, a bare majority of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that someone who induces others to infringe a patent can be held liable to the patent holder; the court thus overturned prior inconsistent decisions holding that a single entity must be liable for direct infringement in order for a party to be liable for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b

Location of outside patent counsel may not subject company to state jurisdiction

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2012

A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement filed by a Massachusetts company against a Texasbased company, finding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with Massachusetts to allow the court to exercise jurisdiction over it

Parties to patent reform law challenge exchange pleadings

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2012

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has filed its opposition to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), and the plaintiffs have filed their reply to the opposition

Alleged infringing farmer files Scotus merits brief on patent exhaustion

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2012

Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman claims in his U.S. Supreme Court merits brief that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that he infringed patents by planting second-generation genetically modified (GM) seeds, has “significantly curtailed the patent-exhaustion defense” by refusing to “hold Monsanto’s patent rights exhausted with respect to the seeds Bowman purchased from a grain elevator.”

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

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

U.S. Supreme Court to consider just one question in Myriad Genetics

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 6 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the patentability of human genes and limited its grant of certiorari to the question “Are human genes patentable?”

Prior trademark litigation no bar to patent infringement claim

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 6 2012

A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has ruled that a patent infringement claim involving an undercarriage system for conveyor belts is not barred by claim preclusion even though the parties had previously litigated a trademark infringement action arising from advertisements for a product based on the patented technology

USPTO faces challenges when determining patent eligibility

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

According to a news source, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been struggling with how to determine whether an invention is patenteligible given the lack of clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court

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