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

Here, there, & everywhere: jurisdiction & venue in patent cases
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2016

Venue shopping can exert strong influence on patent suit success, causing litigants, courts, and legislatures to wrestle with boundaries. The Federal


Decoding patent-eligibility of diagnostic methods
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 19 2016

Figuring out whether an invention is patent-worthy has become a bit easier, thanks to the Federal Circuit’s clarifications in Genetic Technologies


Myriad Genetics sues diagnostics company over BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 11 2013

Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that naturally occurring human genes are not patent eligible and thus found certain Myriad


U.S. Supreme Court to consider just one question in Myriad Genetics
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 6 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the patentability of human genes and limited its grant of certiorari to the question “Are human genes patentable?”


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


D.C. court relies on Prometheus to find therapeutic selection patents invalid
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 19 2012

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., ruling that methods for determining an optimal drug dosage to treat certain autoimmune diseases were not patent eligible, a federal court in the District of Columbia similarly found that claims for “Systems, Methods and Computer Program Products for Guiding the Selection of Therapeutic Treatment Regimens” are patent-ineligible


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


Federal Circuit refuses to consider standingmootness issue in Myriad Genetics
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a non-precedential order declining Myriad Genetics’ invitation to revisit whether the plaintiff has standing, that is, a redressable legal interest in maintaining the lawsuit, and will thus consider, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, whether isolated DNA claims and method claims are patent-eligible under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012


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


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