Judge Connolly of the Delaware District Court, which handled about 20% of all patent cases in 2020, recently ruled that a complaint for indirect infringement or enhanced damages fails to state a claim when the “defendant's alleged knowledge of the asserted patents is based solely on the content of that complaint or a prior version of the complaint filed in the same lawsuit.”
Read more »Tag: patent law
-
Complaint Itself Cannot Meet Knowledge Requirement For Indirect & Willfulness Claims, Says Delaware District Court Posted on: March 29, 2021 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
-
Supreme Court Holds PTAB Decisions Concerning One-Year Time Bar to File IPR Are Not Judicially Reviewable Posted on: May 11, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that 35 U.S.C. §314(d) precludes judicial review of Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) application of the one-year time bar in a decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR).
Read more »
-
Federal Circuit Rules That a Jury Must Determine Visual Similarity Between Design Patent and Prior Art as Part of Obviousness Analysis Posted on: April 22, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
The Federal Circuit issued a precedent-setting ruling that clarifies the appropriate roles of judges and juries when a design patent is challenged as obvious. In doing so, the Court strengthened designers’ rights by confirming that, in certain situations, the question of whether a design patent and the prior art are visually the same should be sent to a jury rather than determined by a judge at the summary judgment phase of litigation.
Read more »
-
Who May Petition for Post-Grant Review Under The AIA? Posted on: April 20, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
Under the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), any “person” other than the patent owner may challenge the patent owner’s patent(s) through post-grant review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The patent statutes do not specifically define the term “person.” The presumption is that the term “person” does not include the federal government and its agencies.
Read more »
-
New York Judge Holds Additional Clinical Trial Results Must Be Reported to Public FDA Database Posted on: March 31, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
A district court in New York has ruled that drug and clinical trial sponsors cannot avoid their obligation to submit “basic results” about the outcome of trials for approved products between September 27, 2007, when a statute requiring publication of this information on ClinicalTrials.gov went into effect, and January 18, 2017, when regulations finally went into effect to implement the statute.
Read more »
-
PTAB Cannot Permit Self-Joinder or Issue-Joinder and POP Statutory Constructions Receive No Deference Posted on: March 25, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
The Federal Circuit ruled the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) cannot permit a party to join itself as a party to its own existing inter partes review (IPR) petition and cannot permit adding new time-barred issues to an old petition by joinder.
Read more »
-
Inequitable Conduct or Experimentation: Long Live Inequitable Conduct? Posted on: March 17, 2020 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
The Federal Circuit recently found a litigant guilty of inequitable conduct in circumstances that should give pause to inventors who want to share their ideas for the purpose of experimentation before making a patent application.
Read more »
-
Design Patents 101 – Part 2 of 2 Posted on: December 13, 2019 In: Intellectual Property & Technology
This is the second installment of a two-part series on design patents. This part will discuss the design application process and briefly touch on the prosecution of such applications
Read more »