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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 138

Federal Circuit explores when litigation is “reasonably foreseeable” for spoliation purposes
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 19 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has issued rulings in companion patent-infringement cases involving the alleged spoliation of documents; at issue was a determination as to when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable," thus triggering a document-preservation duty


French company prevails in dispute with FDA over drug-classification ruling
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 3 2012

A federal court in the District of Columbia has determined that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) erred when it classified a combination drug-device product as primarily a drug, thus subjecting its French manufacturer to more burdensome regulatory requirements


Federal Circuit reminds litigants to cross-appeal patent invalidity claim
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2013

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in the context of patents on improvements to electronic animal collars, has in large part affirmed a lower


Court rules patent attorneys did not infringe scientific article copyrights
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 6 2013

In a bench ruling, a federal court in Texas has reportedly determined that patent attorneys did not infringe scientific article copyrights by making


Life Tech shareholder sues to stop $13.6 billion sale to Thermo Fisher
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 2 2013

According to a news source, Life Technologies shareholder Chang Choi has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of company shareholders alleging breach


Validity of AIA’s retroactive elimination of qui tam provision upheld in false marking suit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 10 2013

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Congress's retroactive elimination of a provision allowing private parties to prosecute


Federal Circuit addresses personal jurisdiction in patent infringement litigation
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 30 2012

Finding that the U.S. Supreme Court “has yet to reach a consensus on the proper articulation of the stream-of-commerce theory” of personal jurisdiction to assess whether a court has jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a patent infringement suit, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has applied its own theory, which assesses the pleadings and evidence under “any articulation of the stream-of-commerce theory,” and has determined that a district court in Wyoming properly dismissed two patent infringement lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction


USPTO seeks to intervene in publisher’s copyright infringement suit against law firm
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2012

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has filed a motion to intervene, and an answer and counterclaim, in litigation brought by scientific-journal publishers against a law firm for alleged copyright infringement involving articles on prior art copied and submitted with its clients’ patent applications


Malpractice claim based on patent application belongs in federal court
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 3 2012

A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that (i) it had jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court order dismissing claims of fraud filed against lawyers who allegedly mishandled the plaintiff’s patent application and (ii) because the statute of limitations was tolled while related malpractice litigation was pending before a California state court, the lawsuit was timely filed in federal court


Court dismisses fraud claims against investors who sued biotech startup
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2011

A federal court in California has granted in part the motion that two biotech startup investors filed under the state's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law to dismiss the company's counterclaims against them