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 Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee appeal (Supreme Court docket number 15-466). The Court was considering two issues related to the recently implemented IPR proceedings from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board"). The two questions presented were: 1. …
-
By Coalition for 21st Century Medicine* — The collective experience of the Members of the Coalition for 21st Century Medicine in trying to obtain much needed patent protection for their novel, life-saving technologies has led to one inescapable conclusion: It is critical to the future of precision medicine that the Supreme Court review the Federal…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Sequenom filed its anticipated petition for certiorari today for Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit's decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom. The petition advises the Court that it "should take this opportunity to provide the guidance the Federal Circuit is openly seeking, and avoid a result neither it nor Congress…
-
By Andrew Williams — On March 4, the Supreme Court announced that the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee appeal would be argued on April 25, 2016 (the last week of oral hearings for the October Term 2015). As we reported previously, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address two questions: 1. …
-
By Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1520). The issue on appeal in the Halo case was limited to Question 1 presented in the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As reported earlier today in IP Law360, Sandoz has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's decision that reversed the District Court in Amgen v. Sandoz. In its decision, two members of the Federal Circuit panel (Judges Lourie and Newman) held that the BPCIA required…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court on Friday granted certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark's Patent Trial and Appeal Board was entitled to perform claim construction in inter partes review proceedings using the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. This case, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, has…
-
By Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Andrew Williams — On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1520). The issue on appeal in the Halo case was limited to Question 1 presented in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the 1977 Yale Law School Holiday Pageant there was a skit about the Supreme Court, with a song sung to the tune of Cole Porter's "Another Opening, Another Show" from the musical Kiss Me Kate: Another opening, another termA chance to show that no precedent's firmAnother opening of another…
Patent Docs 