InLifeScan Scotland, LTD v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit clarified the ability of a patnet holder to enforce patent rights in a product it has given away, but not "sold." Defendant Shasta Technologies appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting LifeScan Scotland a preliminary […]
Continue Reading →· InUniversity of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit held that a patent lawsuit between a state university and the officers of another state university is not a controversy between two states. The case began when the University of Utah (“UUtah”) sued the Max Planck Institute and the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) to correct inventorship […]
Continue Reading →In an Opinion on August 14, 2013 (Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.), the Federal Circuit ruled that the on-sale bar was triggered when a purchase order for slow cookers by patentee Hamilton Beach was confirmed by its supplier. The Court stated that Hamilton Beach’s transaction with its supplier was an offer for […]
Continue Reading →InFox Broadcasting v. Dish Network, Fox Broadcasting Company ("Fox") appealed a ruling by the District Court of Central District of California that Fox did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on most of its copyright infringement and breach of contract claims, and that Fox was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against Dish Network. The […]
Continue Reading →InKimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the plaintiff patent owner appealed the United States District Court for the District of Arizona's decision to not extend royalty payments beyond the life of a licensed patent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. In December 1990, Kimble met with an officer […]
Continue Reading →Novozymes v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences involved patent 7,713,723 directed toward recombinant Bacillus alpha-amylase enzymes engineered to have enhanced acid tolerance and heat tolerance. The patent owner, Plaintiffs-Appellants Novozymes, sued DuPont for infringement. DuPont defended on grounds of non-infringement and invalidity and countersued for a declaratory judgment that the '723 patent was invalid for failing to […]
Continue Reading →· InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district […]
Continue Reading →· The Federal Circuit inUltramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC held that the district court erred in holding that the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545 ('545) is not a "process" within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded this case stating the claims were not abstract […]
Continue Reading →The Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. The Court held that isolated DNA is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that complementary DNA (cDNA) is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. The Court limited […]
Continue Reading →In its recent en banc decision inCLS Bank v. Alice Corp, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the finding of subject matter ineligibility of Alice Corp's method and software for management of risk in financial transactions through use of a third party intermediary. The ten-member panel produced seven different decisions, but did not produce any majority […]
Continue Reading →Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.
Sign Up