Patent Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

In re Ricoh Co., Ltd.: Federal Circuit Clarifies § 1920 Allowances for Prevailing Party to Charge Costs

By Thomas F. Zuber and Sarah S. Brooks of Zuber & Taillieu

The Federal Circuit recently clarified several aspects of § 1920’s allowances for a prevailing party to charge its costs against the losing party. In In re Ricoh Co., Ltd., 661 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit upheld the use of cost-sharing agreements over default statutory rules, allowed the… More...

More Patent Law Updates

Sort by:
Page 3 of 5 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 4 5 >

Prometheus Labs v. Mayo: Preserving Patentability of Medical Diagnostics

Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.  |  February 19, 2010

The Federal Circuit has preserved patent-eligibility for medical diagnostics testing, finding that the administration of drugs and determination of resulting chemical levels can meet the machine-or-transformation test set forth in In re Bilski. In Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., More...

Exergen v. Wal-Mart: Raising the Pleading Requirement for Inequitable Conduct

Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  |  December 7, 2009

The Federal Circuit has established a heightened pleading requirement for claims of inequitable conduct, requiring more than “a mere showing that art or information having some degree of materiality was not disclosed.” In Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1331 (Fed. Cir. More...

Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude: Section 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Claims

Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc.  |  October 2, 2009

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. Section 217(f) is not applicable to method claims. In Cardiac Pacemakers, the Court expressly overruled its own previous controversial decision in Union Carbide, More...

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz: Defining Infringement for Product-by-Process Claims

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz  |  July 13, 2009

The Federal Circuit has resolved prior inconsistencies in its case law and established a bright line rule to define infringement in product-by-process claims, holding that such infringement requires practice of the claimed process by the alleged infringer. In Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 More...

In re Kubin: Extending “Obvious to Try” to cDNA Sequence Patents

In re Kubin  |  June 17, 2009

The Federal Circuit court applied the “obvious to try” test from KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. to biotechnology patent applications, and essentially eviscerated the obviousness standard once applied to biotech patents by the Federal Circuit in In re Deuel. While the decision in In re More...

In re Ferguson: Affirming Bilski’s Machine-or-Transformation Test

In re Ferguson  |  May 26, 2009

In one of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, the court confirmed the Bilski holding that business methods do not constitute patentable processes if they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Specifically, in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2009), the Court held More...

Tafas v. Doll: Limits on Continuations Invalid; Other Claim Limits May Be OK

Tafas v. Doll  |  May 18, 2009

The Federal Circuit largely upheld rules promulgated by the PTO to help relieve its enormous backlog of patent applications. The district court had determined that the rules were substantive and therefore beyond the PTO’s legal authority. In Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a split More...

Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct

Rothman v. Target Corp.  |  May 12, 2009

In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting More...

Boston Scientific v. Cordis: Obviousness from Two Separate Embodiments

Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corp.  |  April 2, 2009

In Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned both the PTO Examiner and the district court trial jury in invalidating Boston Scientific’s patent claims due to invalidity. Specifically, the appellate court determined that More...

Recent Decisions Alter Venue Strategy In Eastern District of Texas Patent Litigation

In re Volkswagen of America Inc./In re TS Tech USA Corp.  |  March 24, 2009

In the wake of two recent federal appeals cases -- In re Volkswagen of America Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – the Eastern District of Texas has lost some of its steam as the most notable “rocket docket” of patent infringement More...

Page 3 of 5 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 4 5 >

Companies Mentioned

Patent Law

The following companies are mentioned in Patent Law Updates:

Target Corp.

emsCharts, Inc.

CVS Corp.

Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc.

Sears Holding Corp.

Softtech, LLC

Daiwa Products, Inc.

Motherswear International, Redcats USA, L.P. d.b.a. Lane Bryant Catalog

Princo Corp.

S.A.A.T. Systems Application of Advanced Technology, Ltd.

Leading Lady, Macy’s Department, Inc.

Princo America Corp.

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.

International Trade Commission

Mayo Collaborative Services d.b.a. Mayo Medical Laboratories

K-Mart Corp.

TiVo Inc.

Mayo Clinic Rochester

J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

EchoStar Corp.

Shanghai Honest Tool Co., Inc.

Glamourmom LLC

EchoStar DBS Corp.

Forest Group, Inc.

Federated Department Stores

EchoStar Technologies Corp.

McKesson Information Solutions, Inc.

Cibon Industrial

Elizabeth Lange LLC d.b.a. Liz Lange Maternity

EchoSphere LLLC

Bridge Medical, Inc.

Bon Tool Company

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

ECHOSTAR Satellite LLC

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Walgreens Corp.

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Dish Network Corp.

Smithkline Beecham Corp. (d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline, plc.)

Touchsport Footwear USA, Inc.

HT Window Fashion Corp.

International Seaway Trading Corp.

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d.b.a GlaxoSmithKline

Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc.

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

Glaxo Group Limited d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline

Cornell Corp.

Mylan Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Additional Resources

Patent Law