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 149

Company sues “patent troll” for declaration that patents are invalid or not infringed
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 14 2011

A company which has allegedly been warned that one of its Web functions violates the patents owned by Lodsys, LLC has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Lodsys patent claims are invalid or that the plaintiff has not infringed the patents


Federal Circuit says certain human genes may be patented
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2011

In a ruling likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that genetic discoveries may, to a certain extent, be patented


USPTO proposes rule to revise materiality standard after therasense decision
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2011

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced its plan to “revise the standard for materiality for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings in light of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co


Federal Circuit upholds fees, costs and sanctions in “patent troll” litigation
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a district court correctly awarded litigation costs and attorney’s fees to the defendant in an infringement action found to be an “exceptional case” and had sufficient grounds to impose Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff, a company in the business of filing infringement actions to extract nuisance value settlements


U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to Bayh-Dole secures inventors’ rights
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a federal law known as the Bayh-Dole Act does not displace the long-established rule that rights in an invention belong to the inventor and that title to federally funded inventions does not automatically vest in federal contractors


Federal court upholds glaucoma drug patents and enjoins generics
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 1 2011

A federal court in Texas has determined that four combination glaucoma drug patents held by Allergan Inc. were valid and that generic drug makers infringed the patents by seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to sell their generic versions under an abbreviated new drug application


U.S. Supreme Court adopts “willful blindness” standard for inducement of infringement
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2011

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the doctrine of willful blindness can be used to establish liability for actively inducing the infringement of a patent


SCOTUS to consider what new evidence may be introduced in Section 145 proceeding
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether an unsuccessful patent applicant may introduce new evidence in a civil action filed under 35 U.S.C. 145 against the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where the evidence could have been presented to the agency in her patent application


Patentability of medical treatment claims to be heard by U.S. Supreme Court
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that methods for determining the optimal dosage of thiopurine drugs used to treat gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101


Federal Circuit upholds sanctions against plaintiff and counsel
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2010

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a motion seeking to stay an award of $631,000 in sanctions and fees against a company and its counsel for bringing a baseless infringement claim involving an information processing methodology