Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
- Federal Circuit Refuses to Switch District Court’s Finding for Nintendo
- Supreme Court to Resolve Dispute Over Marketing of “Skinny Labeled” Generics
- Solicitor General Proves Persuasive; Supreme Court Grants Hikma’s Certiorari Petition
- CNIPA Implements Inventor ID Requirement
about
Category: Supreme Court
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Perhaps overlooked in the widespread assessments of the Supreme Court's questioning of the parties in Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC is the argument before the Court in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC that immediately followed. Assuming the Court affirms the Federal Circuit in Oil States…
-
By Andrew Williams — Leading up to the Supreme Court oral argument for Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC on November 27, 2017, there was a lot of discussion regarding whether patents were a private or public right. Of course, that question is relevant to whether the Patent Office as an…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court today considered the question of whether the inter partes review process established by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in implementing portions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act or 2012 violates the Constitution by permitting a non-Article III court to deprive patentees of property rights, in Oil States…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, we provided a preview of the Supreme Court case Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC. that will be argued on November 27, 2017. The underlying case has received a lot of attention, so it is not surprising that the post generated a lot of interest…
-
By Andrew Williams — On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that were ultimately appealed from IPR Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB. The first of these, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, will analyze whether IPRs (and presumably other post-issuance proceedings) are constitutional. …
-
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 Kevin E. Noonan and Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of biosimilar drugs. The Court described the statute as "a carefully calibrated scheme for…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision today in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., unsurprisingly reversing the Federal Circuit regarding the metes and bounds of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The Court ruled that the doctrine precludes a patentee from using the patent laws to enforce any agreement…
-
By Andrew Williams — Today, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged infringer. As simple as that pronouncement sounds, the…
-
By Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. Sandoz was represented by Deanne E. Maynard, and Amgen was represented by Seth P. Waxman. In addition, Anthony A. Yang presented the position of the United States. The Court considered two issues: (1) whether a biosimilar applicant…
Patent Docs 