Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 42

Federal Circuit rejects extraterritoriality limitation for certain patent claims

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
June 4 2012

In our first posting of Merial Limited, BASF Agro B.V. v. CIPLA Ltd., et al., Nos. 2011-1471, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), we discuss the Court of Appeals ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2

Federal Circuit opens reissues proceedings to add new claims to hedge against patent invalidity

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
September 29 2011

In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, 640 F.3d 1246, 98 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. April 15, 2011) Reissue is an appropriate means to add a narrower dependent claim, according to the April 15, 2011, Federal Circuit decision In re Tanaka, even if the original claims are retained unchanged

Prometheus redux

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
September 29 2011

The Supreme Court, for a second time, granted a petition for certiorari in Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs Inc., No. 10-1150, on June 20, 2011, thereby vacating the Federal Circuit’s December 17, 2010, opinion (628 F.3d 1347) which had been decided on remand for reconsideration in light of Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010

Federal Circuit holds isolated DNA is statutory subject matter under s101

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
September 26 2011

In a decision long awaited by the biotechnology industry, the Federal Circuit has held that claims to isolated DNA are patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 as compositions of matter that do not occur in nature, reversing the lower court ruling

Supreme Court rules that clear and convincing evidence is required to establish the invalidity of a patent

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2011

35 U.S.C. 282 provides that “a patent shall be presumed valid” and that “the burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”

En banc Federal Circuit to review joint (divided) infringement

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2011

The Federal Circuit has agreed to rehear en banc two cases addressing joint infringement (also referred to as divided infringement

Supreme Court rules that induced infringement under 271(b) requires knowledge or “willful blindness” that the induced acts constitute patent infringement

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2011

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A, 563 U.S. ___ (2011), the Supreme Court addressed the type of knowledge a defendant must possess to be liable for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b

In section 145 civil actions, patent applicants are not limited to the USPTO record and may introduce new evidence

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2011

Reversing its earlier 2-1 panel decision in Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent applicant who elects to challenge the PTO’s refusal to issue a patent through a civil action against the Director pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 145 (“section 145 action”) may rely on new evidence and is not limited to evidence that was presented to the PTO during the prosecution of the patent application

En banc Federal Circuit overhauls inequitable conduct law

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2011

In a much anticipated en banc decision, a split Federal Circuit redefined the decades-old inequitable conduct doctrine

Rule 9(b) applies to the false marking statute

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
-
USA
-
May 6 2011

Resolving an issue that has become increasingly important since the Federal Circuit set-off an avalanche of suits under 35 U.S.C. 292 for false patent marking by ruling in December 2009 that the statutory penalty of up to "$500 for every such offense" applies to each individual item falsely marked, the court has now raised the bar on such cases by ruling that the allegations of intent to deceive the public necessary to support a false marking claim must be pled with the high level of particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

next >