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 Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen 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 Kevin E. Noonan — Castigating the Supreme Court, at least in patent circles, has become as prevalent as the Court's forays into patent law have been to overrule the Federal Circuit. While even those who give the Court the benefit of the doubt and appreciate the parsimony with which many of its decisions are…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction determination. We have been previewing this case, including the case law backdrop (see "Supreme Court Preview —…
-
By Andrew Williams — Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction determination. Specifically, the question presented was phrased as: Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…
-
By Andrew Williams — The Supreme Court will begin its 2014-2015 term next Monday. Last year, the Court heard a record number of patent law cases, at least for recent history. Nevertheless, it is scheduled to hear another one on October 15. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. will address whether appellate courts should…
-
By Michael Borella — There's an old saying that "bad facts make bad law," acknowledging that a court's decision regarding an extreme case can result in law that poorly serves less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101 decisions, Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., and…
-
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014) By Kevin E. Noonan — This morning, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Supreme affirmed the Federal Circuit's per curiam opinion in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas with a concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsberg. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the universe of the toxic interplay between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court, an affirmance or even a begrudging acknowledgement of the Federal Circuit's "special expertise" in patent law has become as rare as the apocryphal newspaper headline "Man bites dog." Once again, in an opinion rendered yesterday…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court determined that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U. S. C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed the patent under § 271(a) or any other statutory provision, and reversed a…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we reported earlier today, the Supreme Court issued opinions in the Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1184) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1163) cases. The statute at issue in these cases was 35 U.S.C.…
Patent Docs 