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 62

Second Circuit antitrust decision creates uncer tainty for non-practice of patents
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 11 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's recent decision in New York v. Actavis PLC appeared on its face to address a narrow issue of


Science publisher claims submission of prior art to USPTO involves copyright infringement
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 15 2012

A New Jersey-based publishing company has filed copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts in two states against law firms that submitted citations to or copies of copyrighted articles from scientific journals to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with their clients’ patent applications


Australian court finds human gene mutation to be patentable
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • Australia, USA
  • September 11 2014

A full panel of the Federal Court of Australia has upheld its earlier ruling that an isolated but naturally occurring nucleic acid, BRCA1, can be


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


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


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


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


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


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


Mayo v. Prometheus laboratories argued before U.S. Supreme Court
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2011

With major industries weighing in as amici on the patentability of diagnostic medical tests, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a significant patent case on December 7, 2011