Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Patent Litigation

IP Law 2012: A Look Ahead . . . .

by

Posted in Patent / Pharmaceuticals / Trademarks / USPTO

On January 4, 2012

Coming off a year that included the Smith-Leahy “America Invents Act,” 2012 portends to have some significant developments in IP law. Decisions for IP practitioners and industry to watch for include: the Supreme Court’s decision in Caraco Pharm. Labs. Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, regarding “use codes” and section viii carve-outs under the Hatch-Waxman Act; the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, regarding patentable subject matter, post-Bilski; and the Federal Circuit’s upcoming en banc decisions in McKesson and Akamai, regarding joint infringement liability.

The Hatch Waxman Act and Induced Infringement

by

Posted in Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On December 7, 2011

Oral argument was recently heard before the Federal Circuit in the appeal of AstraZeneca Pharms. LP. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. AstraZeneca, along with IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., (“Plaintiffs) sued ten generic drug companies alleging infringement of US Patent Nos. 6,858,618 (“the ‘618 patent”) and 7,030,152 (“the ‘152 patent”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act. These patents claim methods of treatment using rosuvastatin calcium, which Plaintiffs market as Crestor®.

Increased Patent Litigation in the District of Delaware?

by

Posted in Patent

On November 3, 2011

Following last month’s enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), significant limitations on multidefendant infringement suits are now in effect. Specifically, the joinder provision of the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 299, permits accused infringers to be joined in one action only if any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or arising out of the same transactions or occurrences; and, common questions of fact as to all defendants will arise in the case. Simply put, patentees can no longer sue multiple defendants in the same litigation based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent(s)- in-suit.

Is It Open Season Now for NPEs?

by

Posted in Patent

On October 31, 2011

Among other changes, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) includes the new 35 U.S.C. § 299. This statute purports to reduce the ability of a patent owner to join multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action, a tactic often used by litigious non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), who press for nuisance value settlements. In addition, the AIA commissioned the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) to study the consequences of NPEs, to include their costs, benefits and economic impact.

The Patent Pilot Program Takes Off Around the Country

by

Posted in Patent

On October 20, 2011

Patent litigation has some eccentricities that, some say, require special attention in the court system. One historical effort to address this was the creation of the Federal Circuit in 1982 and the exclusive jurisdiction it possesses to hear patent litigation appeals from all district courts around the nation. This exclusive jurisdiction based on subject matter and not geographic location is fairly unique in the judicial system. Patent litigation often involves complex technical issues to determine patent invalidity and infringement, unique procedural devices (e.g. Markman hearings), and intricate legal issues with technical and economic underpinnings (inequitable conduct, price erosion, lost profits, etc.). For these reasons, patent litigants often prefer to have an experienced judge hear and manage the dispute so that the fairest outcome is had. To address and analyze these and other issues, on January 4, 2011, Congress created the “Patent Pilot Program.”

Therasense and Microsoft v. i4i: A View From the Bench

by

Posted in Patent

On October 17, 2011

On October 25, 2011, The Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology and the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association are proud to present “The Ninth Annual Fall Lecture Series” featuring the Honorable Joel Pisano who will present his observations from the bench on two recent, much-awaited intellectual property law decisions: Therasense v. Becton Dickson and Microsoft v. i4i. In Therasense, the Federal Circuit finally resolved key inequitable conduct issues that had been in a state of vacillation for decades. In Microsoft, Justice Sotomayor presented the majority opinion on the standard of proof required for patent invalidity, a key consideration for all practitioners.

Litigation Expenses Alone Insufficient to Satisfy “Domestic Industry” Requirement Says ITC and Federal Circuit Affirms

by

Posted in International Trade Commission / Patent

On October 10, 2011

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit affirmed an International Trade Commission (“ITC”) decision by refusing to find a patent owner complainant’s litigation expenses satisfied the “domestic industry” requirement of 19 U.S.C § 337. The Court’s decision in John Mezzalingua Assocs. (d/b/a PPC, Inc.) v. International Trade Comm’n, 2010-1536 (Fed. Cir. October 4, 2011) is a blow to ITC complainants, in particular, non-practicing entities intent on relying solely on patent litigation expenses to establish the domestic industry requirement of § 337.

The Federal Circuit’s New Model Order on E-Discovery

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On October 7, 2011

On September 27, 2011, Chief Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit announced that the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit unanimously adopted a Model Order regarding e-discovery in patent cases. Its purpose is to serve as a “starting point” for district courts to streamline and reduce e-discovery costs, emphasizing email production limits.

A Recent Clarification on Intervening Rights by the Federal Circuit

by

Posted in Biotech / Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On September 28, 2011

The Federal Circuit recently found that intervening rights can apply to a claim that has been narrowed by argument only during a reexamination. In Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, the Federal Circuit recently found that narrowing a claim by argument only changes the substantive scope of the claim for purposes of intervening rights. Specifically, a claim term that is changed during reexamination without changing a word in the claim can still substantively narrow the scope of a claim. Therefore, upon reissue of the patent, an infringer would have “… absolute intervening rights with respect to products manufactured before the date of reissue.”

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories