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 142

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

Federal Circuit says certain human genes may be patented

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2011

In a ruling likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that genetic discoveries may, to a certain extent, be patented

Federal Circuit upholds sanctions against plaintiff and counsel

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2010

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a motion seeking to stay an award of $631,000 in sanctions and fees against a company and its counsel for bringing a baseless infringement claim involving an information processing methodology

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

Eleventh Circuit turns aside FTC challenge to pay-for-delay deal

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

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an antitrust action filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer (the patent holder) and generic drug companies that entered into pay-for-delay agreements to settle patent infringement claims filed against the generic drug companies

SCOTUS to determine where patent lawyers may be sued for legal malpractice

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 18 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review a Texas Supreme Court decision that found lower courts had erred in ruling on legal malpractice claims arising from patent-infringement litigation on the ground that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent-law matters

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

SCOTUS to consider what new evidence may be introduced in Section 145 proceeding

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether an unsuccessful patent applicant may introduce new evidence in a civil action filed under 35 U.S.C. 145 against the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where the evidence could have been presented to the agency in her patent application