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 20

Legal Alert: Stay Out of the Weeds: Egregious, Not Garden-Variety, Patent Infringement Is Subject to Enhanced Damages
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2016

On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit's rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In


Patent infringement Safe Harbor and importation redefined: ruling incentivizes generic pharmaceutical offshore product testing
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2015

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has provided an apparent loophole for manufacturers to avoid infringement


It takes one to infringe: Akamai ruling holds that induced infringement requires direct infringement by a single party
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2014

On June 2, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that direct infringement by a single


Monsanto ruling protects innovators of self-replicating biotechnology
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • May 14 2013

On May 13, 2013, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Monsanto v. Bowman that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to


Isolated DNA molecules are patentable chemical entities, and patent-eligible diagnostic methods must include transformational steps
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • August 2 2011

In a vindicating win for the biotechnology industry, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 2010-1406) on July 29, 2011, reversed the lower court and held that “isolated” DNA, including genes and sequence-specific probes for detecting breast and ovarian cancer, are patent-eligible subject matter, since these molecules are “markedly different” new chemical entities that do not exist in nature


Induced patent infringement requires proof of knowledge that the induced acts infringe
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2011

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) requires proof of knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement


Legal alert: Federal Circuit tightens inequitable conduct standards: what does this mean for patent practice in the future?
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2011

On May 25, 2011, the en banc Federal Circuit raised the bar for establishing inequitable conduct in patent infringement cases


New dependent claims in reissue are permissible under In re Yasuhito Tanaka
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • April 21 2011

The ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Yasuhito Tanaka has left no doubt that the patent reissue procedure can be used to add new dependent claims, and is not limited to only correction of claiming errors


The written description requirement revisited, giving caution to biotech patent owners
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • February 28 2011

On February 23, 2011, in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., No. 2010-1144, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) applied the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, to invalidate Centocor’s U.S. Patent No. 7,070,775 (the ‘775 patent


The Supreme Court adopts machine-or-transformation test as one test for patenting business methods
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

In Bilski, et al v Kappos, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the use of the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test as one test for patentability of processes, but held that it is not the only test for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101