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 34

Patentee cannot import features of preferred embodiment into claims

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2007

In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., Nos. 06-1260, -1437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings of infringement and willfulness, but vacated the permanent injunction issued against Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange

Federal Circuit again orders transfer from Eastern District of Texas

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2010

In In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., No. 09-M911 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009), the Federal Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas clearly abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a

Stem cell patents held to be obvious despite successful reexaminations and jury verdict to the contrary

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2007

In PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., Nos. 05-1490, -1551 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s JMOL orders of non-infringement, while reversing the district court’s refusal to grant JMOL of patent invalidity

Federal Circuit affirms the ITC’s finding of non-infringement after construing claim term in light of specification’s figures and dictionary definitions

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

In ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. International Trade Commission, No. 08-1358 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s ruling in favor of Canady Technology, LLC and Canady Technology Germany GmbH (collectively “Canady”) that Canady did not infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,720,745 (“the ’745 patent”

Comparative quantitative testing not necessary when testing provides sufficient evidence of infringement

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, No. 06- 1572 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement, affirmed the district court’s claim construction of disputed terms, and remanded the case for reconsideration of infringement in accordance with the opinion

Attorney argument regarding what inferences to draw and not disclosing details of a process for a defense under 35 USC 102(g) when the patent covered a process broadly did not amount to fraud

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., No. 06-1405 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Apotex Corp.’s (“Apotex”) motion to set aside a judgment on charges of fraud and its refusal to compel discovery sought by Apotex

Trademark protection for ASPIRINA denied as proposed mark is merely descriptive and similar in sound, appearance, and meaning to generic term “aspirin”

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 25 2007

In In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 06-1279 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s ruling that the proposed mark ASPIRINA was merely descriptive for analgesic goods and affirmed the denial of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft’s (“Bayer”) intent-to-use application to register the mark

Federal patent laws preempt District of Columbia statute that imposes limits on “excessive” prices for patented drugs

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2007

In Biotechnology Industry Organization v. District of Columbia, No. 06-1593 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the District of Columbia’s (“the District” or “D.C.”) Prescription Drug Excessive Price Act of 2005, codified at D.C. Code 28-4551 to 28-4555 (“the Act”), is preempted by federal patent laws, and affirmed an injunction that prevents its enforcement

Safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. 121 applies to a divisional of a divisional - even one filed voluntarily, claiming several nonelected inventions

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2010

In Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 09-1032 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of invalidity, holding that a retroactive terminal disclaimer cannot overcome obviousness-type double patenting

Prior art patent’s dosage guidelines failed to provide sufficient guidance to prescribe a treatment regimen and did not enable claimed invention so as to anticipate patent-in-suit

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 19 2008

In Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 07-1513 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2008), the Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that U.S. Patent No. 5,236,940 (“the ’940 patent”) was not an enabling prior art reference and therefore did not anticipate U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814 (“the ’814 patent”) owned by Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Aventis”