ITC’s claim construction reversed, revised construction leads to Section 337 violation In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission that a violation of § 337 of the 1930 Tarriff Act had not occurred. The court reversed the ITC's claim construction, and based on the revised claim construction, found the accused products infringed. This modified claim construction also resulted […] Continue Reading →
Claim and continuation limit rules preliminarily enjoined According to reports, enforcement of the USPTO's new claim and continuation limit rules has been enjoined. Judge James C. Cacheris issued the ruling from the bench after the hearing today on GlaxoSmithKline's motion for preliminary injunction. We'll have more as it develops, including any orders or decisions issued by the court. Update: More detail regarding […] Continue Reading →
Opinion enjoining continuation and claim limit rules released The court's opinion enjoining the USPTO's new continuation and claim limit rules has been released. We'll have more once we've had a chance to analyze the court's reasoning. Update: click here for our post with more detailed analysis. Opinion granting preliminary injunction The AIPLA, who joined the case as an amicus supporting Glaxo, provides this […] Continue Reading →
The Witching Hour approaches: hearing on Glaxo’s preliminary injunction motion today at 10 Eastern Today at 10:00 AM Eastern time, Judge James C. Cacheris in the Eastern District of Virginia will hear GlaxoSmithKline's motion for preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the USPTO's new claim and continuation limit rules. No word on how long the hearing will last, but we'll post as soon as we hear of a ruling. […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit denies rehearing en banc in DC prescription drug price case In a precedential order today, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Biotechnology Industry Organization vs. District of Columbia. On August 3, the court held that the Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act of 2005 enacted by the District of Columbia City Council, which prohibited a patented drug from being […] Continue Reading →
Glaxo files reply brief in support of preliminary injunction, more amici join the fray Today Glaxo filed its reply brief in support of its motion for preliminary injunction to stop implementation of the new continuation and claim limit rules. The brief pays particular attention to the public interest and balance of harms factors in the preliminary injunction analysis, and then responds to the USPTO's arguments regarding likelihood of success […] Continue Reading →
USPTO files opposition to Glaxo’s motion for preliminary injunction against new rules Apparently the government's lawyers had a long weekend, because on Sunday, the USPTO filed its opposition to Glaxo's motion for preliminary injunction against the new claim and continuation limit rules. Included with the opposition were a whopping 34 attachments making up 7 exhibits. The USPTO makes the expected arguments. First, it argues that it is […] Continue Reading →
AIPLA seeks leave to file amicus brief supporting Glaxo in its challenge to the new USPTO rules Today the American Intellectual Property Law Association filed a motion for leave to file an brief as amicus curiae in support of Glaxo's motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of the USPTO's new claim and continuation limit rules. The proposed brief is specifically directed toward the irreparable harm that would result if the rules […] Continue Reading →
Fourth Circuit holds law prohibiting federal registration of Montana state nickname valid In a decision Wednesday, the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court's decision finding a portion of a 2006 law invalid. The portion, a rider attached to an appropriations bill, prohibited any trademark registrations of a nickname of the state of Montana, "The Last Best Place." The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the law valid and […] Continue Reading →
Waiver of immunity in earlier case does not operate as waiver in later case involving same patent In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision that a state had not waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The state had intervened in an earlier, related action, but that action was subsequently dismissed for improper venue. The court held that while the state waived its immunity in the first suit […] Continue Reading →