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 1,119

No competitive injury without intent and action to enter the market
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2015

In a precedential case of first impression interpreting 35 U.S.C. 292 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the new “False Marking Statute,” the U.S


Filling in some Actavis gaps - California Supreme Court adopts structured rule of reason test for antitrust scrutiny of pay-for-delay settlements
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2015

A sweeping new opinion from the California Supreme Court revives California Cartwright Act challenges to pay-for-delay pharmaceutical patent


Standing to assert false marking requires that plaintiff at least attempted to enter the market
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • May 13 2015

Federal Circuit affirms summary judgment that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue false marking claim, holding that the plaintiff had not suffered a


California Supreme Court scrutinizes reverse payment ANDA settlements
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2015

In In Re Cipro Cases I & II, the California Supreme Court laid out a four-part rule of reason analysis for evaluating ANDA settlements that involve a


Following Actavis, California Supreme Court crafts “structured rule of reason” test for evaluating pay-for-delay settlements
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2015

Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616 (Cal. May 7, 2015), holding that reverse payment, or


Pay-for-delay settlement cases may be heard in state courts, California Supreme Court rules
  • McGuireWoods LLP
  • USA
  • May 8 2015

On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that reverse payment (AKA "pay-for-delay") Hatch-Waxman patent litigation settlements


Antitrust counterclaim is bifurcated and stayed
  • Morris James LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2015

Stark, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and stay antitrust counterclaim is granted. Stryker’s unopposed motion to stay pending IPR is granted


Federal Circuit rules that potential competitors may meet “competitive injury” requirement of false-marking claims
  • Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
  • USA
  • May 4 2015

Digest of Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 2014-1205 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from the Western District of Virginia. Before


Reflections & Expectations
  • Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Asia-Pacific, Central & Eastern Europe, European Union, France, Germany, Global, USA
  • April 28 2015

Everyone is talking about cybersecurity. And why not? In the past year, cyberattacks have made headlines as never before. Major companies in a number


Is the FRAND regime due for an overhaul?
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2015

In today's technology-heavy world, technical interoperability standards are quite common. Because those standards are often Patented, patent owners