Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Damages
-
By Michael Borella — Bad law often gives rise to creative legal arguments. But the application of such creative lawyering is necessarily bounded by ethical rules and notions of fair dealing. Patent eligibility, in its current incarnation, has been argued to be bad law by many. The current judicial interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The consequences of joint development agreements, particularly under circumstances where later development is pursued independently by the parties, can create, inter alia, allegations of improper ownership and infringement if the agreements do not contemplate these possibilities and account (or attempt to account) for them. Such was the case in the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Baxalta Inc., Baxalta US Inc., and Nektar Therapeutics for infringing Bayer Healthcare's patent to human blood clotting factor conjugates in Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. Bayer Healthcare sued Defendants on U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520, alleging willful infringement by Baxalta's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Trial courts tend to get more than the benefit of the doubt when their decisions are viewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard, and juries similarly are affirmed unless there isn't substantial evidence supporting their verdicts. Both these rubrics, which extend more generally to cases involving disputes outside patent law,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In Amneal Pharmacueticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit professed to address a question it had not considered before: whether attorney's fees and a exceptional case determination was available for fees and costs incurred when a patent owner defended an inter partes review (IPR) challenge before the Patent Trial…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
Supreme Court Rejects USPTO's Attempt to Recover Attorney's Fees in All District Court "Appeals" from PTAB Decisions By Joshua Rich — In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today, the Court considered whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could compel an aggrieved applicant to pay its attorney's fees in…
-
By Joshua Rich — On the first day of the 2019-20 term, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.,[1] a case raising the question of whether a patent applicant should be responsible to pay all of the PTO's attorneys' fees in a § 145 "appeal"; it did not go well for…
-
By Michael Borella — Background Cellspin Soft Inc. (Cellspin) filed an infringement suit against Fitbit Inc. (Fitbit) and ten other defendants in the Northern District of California, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,794, 8,892,752, 9,258,698, and 9,749,847. These patents have a common specification and their claims are directed to a data capture device being connected to…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion for exceptional case filed by Defendant Tupperware Brands Corp., finding that Tupperware Brands had failed to establish that the case was exceptional under…
Patent Docs 