Federal Circuit Clarifies Venue Waiver After TC Heartland

By Peter R. Montecuollo and David G. Barker The Federal Circuit issued guidance yesterday for district courts deciding venue challenges after the Supreme Court’s May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC.  In In re Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit granted Micron Technology, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that TC Heartland “changed the controlling law” by making available a venue defense that was not “available” to patent infringement defendants prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. In the wake of TC Heartland, Micron Technology moved to dismiss or transfer President and Fellows   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

District Courts Disagree on Venue-Waiver Issues After TC Heartland

By David G. Barker At the end of May this year, the Supreme Court unanimously clarified the law on venue in patent infringement lawsuits (see here). For 27 years, litigants had relied on a Federal Circuit decision, VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. (1990), that allowed patent owners to file suit virtually anywhere an infringing product was sold. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court limited venue, and district courts are reaching different conclusions about whether litigants have waived venue arguments by not asserting them before TC Heartland. TC Heartland held that a 1957   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings

By Rachael Peters Pugel and Andrew F. Halaby The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings conducted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the America Invents Act.  The Court’s ruling in this matter, especially if it holds inter partes reviews to be unconstitutional, could massively destabilize the patent law system by casting into doubt an administrative regime that has diverted thousands of patent disputes from the federal court system, as well as the many hundreds of decisions invalidating patent claims so far yielded by that regime. Post-issuance proceedings   Read More »

Posted in Inter Partes Review, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation, Post Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Permits Biosimilar Drugs to Be Marketed Sooner

By Jacob C. Jones and David G. Barker On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA approval. This means that, in some circumstances, manufacturers can begin marketing biosimilars immediately after FDA approval. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) required Sandoz to give Amgen notice 180 days before selling its biologic Zarxio, an FDA approved biosimilar drug that relied on the prior approval of Amgen’s Neupogen.  Sandoz   Read More »

Posted in Biosimilars, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Decision Limits Post-Sale Restrictions by Patent Owners

The United States Supreme Court today held in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. that the doctrine of patent exhaustion limits post-sale restrictions by patent owners and that patent rights are exhausted once a product is sold domestically or internationally. Partially continuing the recent theme of unanimous intellectual property decisions (see here and here), the Supreme Court held 8-0 that domestic sales — even restricted sales — exhaust patent rights, and 7-1 that international sales also exhaust patent rights. Under its “Return Program,” Lexmark allowed customers to purchase a reduced-price toner cartridge if the customer agreed to use the   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article: