Category: Uncategorized

By Joshua Rich – When we last encountered the Collison Communications v. Samsung case in the Eastern District of Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had submitted a “Statement of Interest” on whether a non-practicing entity could obtain a permanent injunction after prevailing in patent infringement litigation.[1]…

By Kevin E. Noonan – The United States recently filed a Statement by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 517 regarding the “Interests of United States in pending suits” in Corteva Agriscience LLC, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, and Agrigenetics, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. and Inari Agriculture…

By Kevin E. Noonan – On April 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma  v. Amarin, with Charles Klein, representing Hikma, Michael Huston representing Amarin, and Malcolm Stewart addressing the Court on behalf of the Government. First, some statistics.  Charles Klein was questioned by the fewest Justices (Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson), while…

By Kevin E. Noonan – While the Supreme Court established a rather definitive standard (“reasonable certainty by a person having ordinary skill in the art”) for determining indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and indefiniteness is a question of law mandating less deference by the Federal Circuit, the…

By Kevin E. Noonan – In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf of neither party (although the latter category is in some instances…

By Kevin E. Noonan – In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf of neither party (although the latter category is in some instances…

By Kevin E. Noonan – In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the remaining five on behalf of neither party (although the latter category is in some instances…

By Kevin E. Noonan – In recent years, the Federal Circuit has, with varying levels of agreement, considered what behavior by generic drugmakers constitutes inducement of infringement regarding so-called “off-label” prescribing for indications not covered in their approved label (known as a “skinny label; see “GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)“).  In the latest instance…

By Kevin E. Noonan – A distinguished groups of retired judges* filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Pauline Newman’s Petition for Certiorari over the unwillingness of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule on her complaint regarding constitutional violations by the Federal Circuit Judicial Council (see “Judge Newman Seeks Recourse from Supreme Court“). …

By Kevin E. Noonan – In recent years, the Federal Circuit has, with varying levels of agreement, considered what behavior by generic drugmakers constitutes inducement of infringement regarding so-called “off-label” prescribing for indications not covered in their approved label (known as a “skinny label; see “GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)“).  In the latest instance…