Results 1 to 5 of 8

Potential liability for marking products with patent numbers of expired patents

USA - June 17 2010 In Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co. , No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010), the Federal Circuit held for the first time that products marked with expired patent numbers are "unpatented" within the meaning of the statute and could be subject to false marking liability, but let Solo off the hook because it did not have the "intent to deceive" required by the statute.

Alicia M. Choi, Peter Flanagan, Keith Mullervy

In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit gives thumbs down to the "25 percent rule of thumb"

USA - January 10 2011 On January 4, 2011, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit decided Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Court of Appeals Nos. 2010-1035, -1055 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011).

Alicia M. Choi, David Elkins

Patenting research or preempting the future before it has arrived? Federal Circuit reaffirms written description requirement

USA - March 27 2010 The core intellectual property of many universities and advanced research centers may be significantly impacted by the Federal Circuit Court’s recent en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. MIT.

Alicia M. Choi, Peter Flanagan, Keith Mullervy

US Supreme Court holds diagnostic patents invalid for claiming laws of nature

USA - March 22 2012 On March 20, 2012 the United States Supreme Court invalidated two diagnostic patents for reciting no more than laws of nature.

David Elkins, Douglas H. Goldhush, Rahul Pathak

US Supreme Court raises the bar for proving inducement of patent infringement

USA - June 1 2011 The US Supreme Court’s May 31, 2011 decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, S.A.[1] is the latest – and final – word in a string of decisions over the past five years defining the intent that must be shown for inducement of patent infringement.

David Elkins, Christopher D. Mays