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:

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Limits Venue in Patent Infringement Suits

By Peter R. Montecuollo and David G. Barker In yet another unanimous intellectual property decision (see here), the United States Supreme Court today held in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC that “reside,” as used in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), “refers only to the State of incorporation,” and not to each state where a domestic, corporate defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.  This limitation alters the venue landscape for patent infringement suits that has been in place since the Federal Circuit’s 1990 decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. Kraft   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Decide Patent Infringement Suit Venue Issue with Potentially Immense Implications

The U.S. Supreme Court this week granted TC Heartland, LLC’s (“Heartland’s”) petition for a writ of certiorari regarding the patent infringement venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).  Heartland appealed the Federal Circuit’s refusal to dismiss the case or transfer a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Heartland from Delaware to Indiana, where Heartland is incorporated.  The Supreme Court agreed to address “Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).”  If the Supreme Court answers the question in the affirmative, venue options likely will   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Dismantles $400M Apple Design Patent Award Against Samsung

In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States today reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding Apple Inc.’s nearly $400 million design patent award against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Apple secured the award after a jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design patents covering the iPhone’s iconic front face with rounded corners and 16 colorful icons on a black screen. Section 289 of the Patent Act permits a design patent holder to recover an infringer’s total profits from the sale of any “article of manufacture” to which the infringing design has been applied.  The Federal Circuit upheld   Read More »

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

Share this Article: