Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Venue
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. The Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question recently when it…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Venue in patent cases has been a topic of recent Supreme Court (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC) and Federal Circuit (In re Cray) consideration. Last month, the Federal Circuit again considered venue with regard to a motion to transfer and defendant's writ of mandamus challenging the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A question of sovereign immunity, which has come before the Federal Circuit in many guises of late (Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp.), arose again in Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp.…
-
District Court Refuses to Limit Application of In re Cray to Factual Circumstances Where Physical Products Are Involved By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order granting a Motion to Change Venue…
-
Storage Units Do Not Satisfy Second Prong of Cray Test for Establishing "Regular and Established Place of Business" By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this year, in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. United States Endoscopy Group, Inc., District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a Motion…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The proper application of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017), under recent Federal Circuit precedent (see In re Cray, Inc.) continues to be explicated in the district courts. The…
-
By Andrew Williams — Since the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC last year, there have been hundreds of district court cases that have determined (or reconsidered) whether venue was proper. Correspondingly, because there have been "basic" and "undecided" issues necessary to address the effect of the TC…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 11th annual list of top patent stories. For 2017, we identified nineteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The sequel to the original summer blockbuster movie, Jaws, had as a tagline "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water." This sentiment can describe much of U.S. patent law over the last decade and a half, between the ill-fated USPTO "claims and continuation" rules, the…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC 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. Last month, the Federal Circuit in In re Micron concluded that…
Patent Docs 