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 233

New 'belief' defense to induced infringement: fixing what isn't broken?

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2013

Perhaps believing can make it so, at least according to the Federal Circuit's latest ruling regarding induced infringement and invalidity. In

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

"Who'd a thunk it?" Settlement licenses put the squeeze on NPEs

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2011

For years, licenses settling a patent infringement lawsuit were not viewed as an "established royalty" in a patent damages calculation

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

Cross-examine rather than reject expert damages testimony

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 3 2013

Applying the notion that rejecting expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, a magistrate judge in Alexam encouraged vigorous

A winning smallest salable unit argument

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2013

The court in Internet Machines agreed with Plaintiff that using smallest patent-practicing salable unit methodology rendered the EMVR inapplicable and

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