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 129

Farmers and seed companies want Monsanto GE seed patents declared invalid

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 1 2011

A coalition of more than 50 trade organizations, seed businesses, farms, and farmers has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York, to stop Monsanto Co. from enforcing its genetically engineered (GE) seed patents against farmers whose fields become contaminated with the GE seeds. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-2163 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., filed March 29, 2011

Sanctions imposed on counsel in patent litigation affirmed

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

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld nearly $44,000 in sanctions imposed on the attorney for a plaintiff in patent litigation, finding that he was equally responsible for his client’s failure to adequately respond to an interrogatory seeking its infringement theory

Court rejects attempt to keep settled infringement suit alive through appeal

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 24 2013

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed as moot the appeal of a patent infringement dispute between parties that had settled the claims

Control at issue in split Federal Circuit ruling on joint infringement

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 21 2011

A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel, relying on recent precedent, has confirmed that "where the actions of multiple parties combine to perform every step of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed only if one party exercises 'control or direction' over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party."

U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to Bayh-Dole secures inventors’ rights

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 16 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a federal law known as the Bayh-Dole Act does not displace the long-established rule that rights in an invention belong to the inventor and that title to federally funded inventions does not automatically vest in federal contractors

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 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

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 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

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