Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
about
Category: District Court
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers by under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), the potential for anticompetitive effects made them subject to antitrust scrutiny…
-
By Michael Borella — When a district court judge states that "[o]ne could say this case is about a patent that claims too much and a legal test that provides too little," it is not hard to guess which way the case is going to go (the patent gets invalidated), based on what grounds (35 U.S.C.…
-
District Court Overrules Defendants' Objections to Magistrate's Report on Lost Profits By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Order that, inter alia, overruled objections by Defendants Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.,…
-
District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patent Eligible Subject Matter By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this year, in Viveve, Inc. v. Thermigen, LLC, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 35…
-
Magistrate Recommends Narrow Interpretation of Inter Partes Review Estoppel Provision By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Report and Recommendation on two motions related to Microsoft's invalidity defenses to Biscotti's…
-
Method for Processing Images from 3D Camera System Found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — It is well-known law today that under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent claim that recites a solution to a problem but not the means of achieving it is likely not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. …
-
District Court Awards Attorney Fees for Plaintiff's Use of Discovery to Police Defendants' Future Conduct By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Senior District Judge William H. Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an amended opinion granting the motion for attorney…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Federal Circuit concluded that the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia correctly confirmed an international arbitration tribunal's award of $455 million, modified the judgment such that post-judgment interest accrues at the federal statutory rate, and affirmed the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — This is a time when the eternal verities are routinely called into question, particularly in patent law. For example, Judge Linn can state in a concurrence that, while there is no reason "in policy or statute" why the claims in Sequenom v. Ariosa are not patent eligible, he must rule…
-
Patent Directed to System for Remote Mirroring of Digital Data Found Invalid under Section 101 By Joseph Herndon — Intellectual Ventures brought a patent-infringement suit against Symantec Corpo. and Veritas Technologies asserting that Symantec's VVR product infringes claims 25 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,533. Among other motions decided here, the District Court granted…
Patent Docs 