To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In 2017, Cytonome filed suit in the Western District of Wisconsin (“the District Court”), accusing ABS of infringing six of its patents, including US Patent No. 8,529,161 (“the ’161 patent”). Subsequently, in October 2017, ABS filed for
inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’161 patent, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued a decision in April 2019 that invalidated certain claims of the ’161 patent while also finding that ABS had failed to demonstrate several other claims as unpatentable.
Shortly after the Board’s decision, the District Court granted in part a motion for summary judgment by ABS, finding that ABS’s products did not infringe any of the ’161 patent’s claims. Nevertheless, nearly two months later, ABS appealed the Board’s decision. At the beginning of January, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) issued a precedential decision in
Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions. This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III always a.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court affirming plaintiffs asserting their patents under the doctrine six times (versus denying DOE infringement on the basis of prosecution history estoppel twice, on the basis of the dedication-disclaimer estoppel twice, and finding no equivalents twice). One of those affirmances was in
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., directed to the same patent and with assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as in the most recent case decided by the Federal Circuit,
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A few months ago, we wrote about how the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) had defined when the protest clock starts running for a stay of contract performance pending a bid protest if the Department of Defense’s (DOD) enhanced post-award debriefing procedures are used. The case was
NIKA Technologies, Inc. v. United States, and the issue involved when NIKA’s debriefing ended. The COFC ruled for NIKA, but the United States has now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. NIKA is not participating in the appeal, leaving the Department of Justice (DOJ) to go it alone. On December 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit heard an oral argument.
GSK v Teva – Induced Infringement – Are mondaq.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mondaq.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.