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 409

Patent eligibility under Alice: reliance on lack of routine or conventional use

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2015

Federal courts have continued to wrestle with the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 set by the Supreme Court's ruling in

Federal Circuit upholds Patent Term Adjustment deduction for IDS filed after Restriction Requirement

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 2 2015

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO's interpretation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute as permitting the

Court cites objects of invention in claim construction

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2015

Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. is one of those Federal Circuit decisions that may send patent practitioners running to their

Federal Circuit affirms use of broadest reasonable interpretation of claims in IPR proceedings

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2015

In affirming the decision of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the

Federal Circuit upholds Patent Office's first decision of unpatentability in an inter partes review

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2015

Today in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 14-1301, a majority (Judges Dyk and Clevenger) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB

Has the machine-or-transformation test returned to prominence in patent cases?

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2015

The machine-or-transformation test was once the gatekeeper of patent eligibility, but that reign ended in 2010 when the Supreme Court stated in

Why did the Supreme Court GVR the Shire Lialda case?

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2015

On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the

Validity of Sequenom patent still to be decided

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2015

Although Sequenom has settled its dispute over U.S. Patent 6,258,540 with some parties (as I noted here), its case against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc

Supreme Court calls for some deference in claim construction standard of review

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 22 2015

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., finding that the Federal Rules of Civil

Can any DNA claims still be patented?

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 21 2015

In a decision issued December 17, 2014, in In Re BRCA1- And BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation (Myriad II), the Federal Circuit