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 Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 11th annual list of top patent stories. For 2017, we identified nineteen 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…
-
Damned if you do . . . By Kevin E. Noonan – Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance . . . but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. Northern Securities Co.…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., District Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Plaintiff Ni-Q that the claims of U.S.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The sequel to the original summer blockbuster movie, Jaws, had as a tagline "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water." This sentiment can describe much of U.S. patent law over the last decade and a half, between the ill-fated USPTO "claims and continuation" rules, the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. Oxford had sought dismissal of a complaint filed by Pacific Biosciences…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Plaintiff Image Processing Technologies, LLC ("IPT") filed suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293. The '293 patent, entitled "Method and Device for Automatic Visual Perception," claims improved visual perception processors and a…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In something of an anticlimax, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, granted Allergan's motion to join the St. Regis Mohawk Nation to ANDA litigation as a necessary party, and then found claims of the Orange…
-
Duty to Disclose Does Not Include Duty to Respond to Examiner Confusion By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., District Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to strike filed by Plaintiff Nevro Corp., determining that the specific…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, we reported on a decision in Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc., in which District Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. ("NAI"), and determined that NAI's claim…
-
Telephone Call Processing Patent Claims Found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action on seeking a declaration that none of Plaintiff's accused products infringed any valid claims of Defendant's U.S. Patent Nos. 8,351,591 and 7,822,188,…
Patent Docs 