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 1,061

Court upholds findings of infringement and validity for Prilosec patents

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2008

In In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, Nos. 07-1414, -1416, -1458, -1459 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings of infringement by Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc. (collectively “Apotex”) and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) of patents held by Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI-E, Inc., KBI, Inc., and Astrazeneca LP (collectively “Astra”

Evidence not cited in connection with SJ motion also not considered on appeal

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2008

In In re Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC, Nos. 07-1328, -1329, -1330, -1331, -1332, -1333, -1354, -1361 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affi rmed a grant of SJ of invalidity under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(b), in favor of Telesys Communications, LLC and seven other defendants (collectively “the Telesys defendants”), as well as AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”

PTO’s interpretation that “original application” as used in the inter partes reexamination statute includes continuation applications filed after November 29, 1999, is reasonable

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2008

In Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas, No. 08-1130 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ to the PTO, rejecting a challenge to an inter partes reexamination

Federal Circuit affirms USPTO in In re Bilski

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 30 2008

Today a divided Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that to be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 a process must (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing

Factual issues related to motivation to combine preclude SJ of nonobviousness

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation v. Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc., No. 07-1449 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed entry of SJ that Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (“CSIRO”) U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (“the ‘069 patent”) was not invalid for anticipation, for inadequate written description, or for introducing new matter

Intent to deceive inferred from high degree of materiality, knowledge of withheld reference, and lack of credible explanation for nondisclosure

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., Nos. 07-1483, -1509 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2008), the Federal Circuit affimed the district court’s conclusion that Praxair, Inc. and Praxair Technology, Inc.’s (collectively “Praxair”) U.S. Patent No. 6,045,115 (“the ’115 patent”) was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct

Dismissal of plaintiff’s DJ complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants reversed

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, No. 08-1109 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2008), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s DJ complaint, finding that the presence and activities of the defendant patent holder in the state of Washington were sufficient for the Washington district court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendants

The ITC’s invalidity or non-infringement determination is final and appealable, unlike an exclusion order that is appealable only after the sixty-day presidential review period

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 07-1164 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s determination that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,374,311 (“the ’311 patent”), but vacated-in-part and remanded the ITC’s non-infringement determination as to U.S. Patent No. 6,583,675 (“the ’675 patent”

The first Paragraph IV ANDA filer’s potential delay in launching generic product does not create DJ jurisdiction for subsequent ANDA filer

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 08-1062 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Apotex, Inc.’s (“Apotex”) DJ suit in favor of Janssen Phamaceutica, N.V. and Janssen, L.P. (collectively “Janssen”

Rethinking the law: the separate and distinct “point of novelty” test for design patent infringement is vanquished

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2008

In Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., No. 06-1562 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2008) (en banc), the Federal Circuit swept aside the two-part test for infringement of a design patent and abandoned the “point of novelty” prong of the infringement test