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 — Myriad Genetics filed its responsive brief with the Supreme Court last Thursday in AMP v. Myriad Genetics ("the Myriad case"). It is a certainly a serviceable brief that makes the patent law arguments that need to be made and cites at least some of the precedent that should be cited. But…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Par/Paddock, one of the generic drug company defendants in FTC v. Actavis Inc. et al. (the "reverse payment" ANDA settlement case now before the Supreme Court) filed its reponsive brief last week. In it, the generic drug company not only answers the FTC's charges of non-competitive behavior but also exposes the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A patent issue exerted its Circe-like effect on the Supreme Court again today in Gunn v. Minton, a decision overruling the Texas Supreme Court on the question of whether the existence of a patent issue in a legal malpractice action implicated Federal District Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., with Mark P. Walters representing Farmer Bowman, Seth Waxman representing Monsanto, and Melissa Arbus Sherry representing the Department of Justice. While Supreme Court tea-leaf reading is a fool's game, consideration of the questions from the Justices can at…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On the brink of oral argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it may be helpful to reiterate (as do the parties) the arguments from Petitioner Farmer Bowman and Respondent Monsanto, Inc. in Bowman v. Monsanto. Farmer Bowman reprises his argument that the sale of the patented seed exhausts any…
-
By Donald Zuhn — A group of universities, entities affiliated with universities, higher education associations, and entities involved in university technology management, in an amici brief filed in Bowman v. Monsanto, argue that reversal of the decision that petitioner Vernon Bowman infringed Monsanto's patents on glyphosphate-resistant soybeans "would weaken patent rights for artificial, progenitive technologies…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an amicus brief filed last month in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the United States asks the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment of the Federal Circuit that cDNA is patent-eligible and reverse the judgment of the appellate court that isolated but otherwise unmodified DNA is patent-eligible. The…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an amicus brief filed in support of respondents Monsanto Co. et al. last month, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) asked the Supreme Court to affirm that petitioner Vernon Bowman infringed Monsanto's patents on glyphosphate-resistant soybeans because Monsanto never authorized Mr. Bowman to "mak[e]" Roundup Ready® soybeans from the commodity seeds…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a paper filed earlier this week by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., the U.S. government has asked the Supreme Court for leave to present ten minutes of argument in Bowman v. Monsanto. The request is not unusual or controversial — but the apportionment of argument time requested by the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The "conventional wisdom" surrounding the Bowman v. Monsanto case now before the Supreme Court on certiorari is that it is "David v. Goliath," the salt-of-the-earth farmer versus the corporate monolith, and an example of the traditional commoditization of American values by purveyors of "Frankenfood" looking merely to maximize shareholder profit. …
Patent Docs 