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 46

Federal Circuit’s patent infringement ruling conflicts with USPTO re-examination on validity

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 1 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for an en banc rehearing by a medical-device patent holder which argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Board of Patent Appeals had effectively nullified a previous Federal Circuit decision on the validity of its patent

Violations of discovery orders result in default judgment, monetary sanctions, potential discipline

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 18 2011

A federal court in Texas has imposed severe sanctions in a patent infringement lawsuit, due to repeated violations of its discovery orders and the creation of a fraudulent discovery-related document; a default judgment has been entered against the violator, and information about the document has been forwarded to alert the district’s chief judge “of the need to potentially take disciplinary measures” against counsel

Ambry Genetics countersues Myriad Genetics in genetic patent infringement suit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2013

Responding to the patent infringement claims asserted against it by Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics Corp. denies that the 15 patents at issue were

ACLU weighs in on patentability of human genes in Myriad Genetics

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys representing the petitioners in The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398 (U.S., docketed October 1, 2012), have filed their petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court. Information about the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from which the petition has been filed appears in Issue 41 of this Bulletin

EU Court of Justice nixes patents for stem-cell inventions involving human embryo destruction

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 20 2011

The European Union (EU) Court of Justice has determined that EU patent law does not protect neural precursor cells and the processes for their production from embryonic stem cells

Indian Supreme Court rules Novartis cancer drug change not patentable

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • India
  • -
  • April 4 2013

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the patent application filed by Novartis AG for a beta crystalline form of its cancer drug Gleevec, also

Myriad litigants seek rehearing, stalling case before Federal Circuit panel

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 22 2011

Court watchers were reportedly surprised that both sides to litigation involving the patentability of genetic discoveries filed petitions for a rehearing before the divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel that issued a ruling on the matter in July 2011

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

SCOTUS sides with FTC in reverse payment deals

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2013

A divided U.S. Supreme Court has determined that patent-infringement settlement agreements requiring the patentee to pay the claimed infringer

Federal Circuit confirms that generic ANDA applications did not infringe drug patents

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 16 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that when generic drug makers seek Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for uses of patented drugs not covered by the patents, the generics do not infringe the patents