The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to put restrictions on where patent lawsuits can be filed will limit the ability of patent owners to file cases in favorable courts, likely marking the end of the Eastern District of Texas as a patent litigation hot spot. Here, Law360 takes a look at the impact and other possible fallout from the ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC to put tighter restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision is significant.
Sonoma Pharmaceuticals Inc. relied on a forged letter to bring a trade secrets suit against new rival Collidion Inc., so the suit should be tossed and Sonoma should be sanctioned, Collidion told a California federal judge Friday.
A New Jersey federal judge has ordered Roxane Laboratories Inc. to pay $2 million in legal fees in a patent infringement claim against two generic-drug makers over a kidney medication, a ruling that follows the jurist’s previous declaration that the case was “exceptional” for its lack of a legal basis.
Owners of patent applications that were siphoned without notice into a now-defunct secret patent screening process operated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are bringing their proposed class action again in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, arguing Monday that the government breached their implied contract.
A Missouri-based software company has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case alleging that web giant Amazon Inc. has been infringing patents covering computer processing after the Federal Circuit invalidated the asserted patents as abstract under the Alice standard.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. have refused to hand over crucial information such as Teva’s financial forecasts in a potential class action by buyers alleging that the companies conspired to delay generic competition for epilepsy treatment Lamictal, counsel for purchasers of the drug told a New Jersey federal court on Friday.
In a decision predicted to have wide reverberations in the world of patent litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously on Monday to return to a stricter standard for patent venue selection, effectively blocking most future patent cases from the ever-popular Eastern District of Texas. Here’s a look at the history of the TC Heartland case.
Following a similar move by the Texas Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a dispute between Jenner & Block LLP and Parallel Networks, which alleged the law firm had wrongly been allowed to drop its representation of the patent holding company and still receive $3 million in fees, in violation of public policy.
Uber Technologies Inc. is seeking to stay California federal court proceedings while it appeals a decision denying its bid to arbitrate trade secret and patent infringement claims from Waymo LLC over driverless car technology allegedly stolen by a former top engineer.
A New Jersey-based pharmacy is unlawfully using trade secrets and confidential information provided by the former employees of one of its competitors, costing the competitor more than $2 million per month in lost patients and physician referral sources, according to a suit filed Monday in federal court.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal that would revive a copyright case against the producers of a popular Broadway play that features the famous "Who's on First?" comedy routine pioneered by comedy duo Abbott and Costello.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to take up a case that asked the justices to define what constitutes an "abstract idea" that is not patent-eligible under the high court’s previous Alice ruling and to clarify the standard of proof for invalidating a patent on eligibility grounds.
McNair Law Firm PA has announced that it has bolstered its intellectual property practice group in its Charlotte, North Carolina, office with the addition of three former Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP patent attorneys.
I’ve seen seasoned lawyers in the courtroom who failed to listen effectively, which alienates the jury, destroys what could have been a devastating cross-examination, and sometimes frustrates judges who simply want their question answered, says Ashley Moore, principal at McKool Smith PC.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put tighter restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits, a decision that upends nearly 30 years of established practice and will likely force many lawsuits out of the patent litigation hotbed of the Eastern District of Texas.
Lawsuit process service abroad can properly go through a mailbox, under the Hague Service Convention, provided the jurisdiction hearing the suit recognizes mail service and the foreign jurisdiction doesn't object, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday in a unanimous decision reviving a splash pad company's dormant Texas trade secrets suit.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to consider if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can choose to review only some patent claims challenged in America Invents Act reviews, taking up a case arguing that the board must issue a final decision on all challenged claims.
A software developer arrested in late 2015 has pled guilty to economic espionage and theft of a trade secret in connection with stolen source code from his former employer and his apparent efforts to sell it and use it for the Chinese government, prosecutors said Friday.
An attorney with Prenda Law who pled guilty in March to scheming to extort millions in fraudulent copyright infringement settlements from people who downloaded pornographic movies has agreed to be disbarred, according to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
In this week’s intellectual property partners on the move, Blank Rome added two attorneys to its Houston office, Quinn Emanuel bolstered its New York practice with an IP litigator from Kirkland & Ellis, and Dilworth Paxson hired a partner with expertise in artificial intelligence. Here, we offer details on these partners and others who have landed new jobs.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put tighter restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits, a decision that upends nearly 30 years of established practice and will likely force many lawsuits out of the patent litigation hotbed of the Eastern District of Texas. Here, check out all of our best coverage of the case.
How far can an injunction go to prohibit activities by the infringing product’s manufacturer, a nonparty who did not yet have its day in court? The Federal Circuit's recent Asetek decision explored the limits of enjoining actions by such nonparty product manufacturers, says Jason Keener, chairman of Fox Swibel Levin & Carroll LLP's intellectual property group.
This series explores how the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in KSR v. Teleflex has affected obviousness analysis and the patent landscape.
As more issued patents qualify for post-grant review, parties increasingly will have a choice between inter partes review and PGR. This choice needs to be made early by parties considering preemptive challenges to patents that may restrict freedom to operate in the future, because PGRs must be filed within nine months after patent issuance, say attorneys with Latham & Watkins LLP.
While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in KSR has changed the face of patent litigation, its influence may be waning as it approaches its teenage years, say Ron Osborne of Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corporation, Matthew Cutler of Harness Dickey & Pierce PLC and Gregory Upchurch of LegalMetric.
Too many district courts have followed the incorrect holding in Ultramercial, that novel and inventive business processes are “abstract ideas,” contrary to the limited expansion of the “abstract idea” exception in Bilski and Alice. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will take advantage of the opportunity to correct this misapplication in Broadband iTV v. Hawaiian Telcom, say Charles Macedo and Sandra Hudak of Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP.
The use of secondary considerations to support an argument for nonobviousness is often an uphill battle due to a failure to establish a nexus between secondary considerations and the claimed invention, and this trend continues post-KSR. However, a few inter partes review decisions show that nexus arguments can be found persuasive, say attorneys with Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP.
The United States needs to pursue its investigation of Qualcomm vigorously both to ensure that Qualcomm is not acting improperly and also to deter future potential abuses of standard-essential patents, says Joshua Wolson of Dilworth Paxson LLP.
The Federal Circuit's decision Monday in Helsinn v. Teva provides guidance on its ruling last year in Medicines Co. v. Hospira and the America Invents Act on-sale bar, says Jerry Selinger of Patterson & Sheridan LLP.
Two Federal Circuit cases — Perfect Web v. InfoUSA and Arendi v. Apple — have applied the KSR “common sense” rationale in seemingly similar situations but with opposite results. Looking at what set the cases apart may shed light on what is truly common sense for an obviousness determination, says Hui Wauters of Sughrue Mion PLLC.
Scams resulting in access to confidential information are probably a lawyer’s greatest technology and cybersecurity risk. But hackers are more likely to gain access to a lawyer’s computer systems through human error, usually responding to a scam, than a brute force attack, says J. S. Christie Jr. of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.