Federal Circuit Erases Juno’s $1 Billion Judgment by Invalidating Patent for Inadequate Written Description

By Anne Bolamperti and David G. Barker The Federal Circuit invalidated Juno Therapeutics, Inc.’s T cell therapy patent for cancer treatment and erased a billion dollar judgment in Juno’s favor. The court held that the jury verdict regarding the patent’s written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) was not supported by substantial evidence. Juno’s U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (the “’190 patent”) relates to a nucleic acid polymer encoding a three-part chimeric antigen receptor (“CAR”) for a T cell. The first two portions of the CAR allow T cells to both kill target cells and divide into more T cells. The third portion   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Determines New Limitations to Assignor Estoppel Doctrine

By Marsha Cotton and David G. Barker The Supreme Court upheld assignor estoppel in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al. but held that the Federal Circuit “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” In doing so, the Court imposed new limitations on when the equitable doctrine applies in a patent case. The Court did away with the bright-line rule that any time an inventor assigns a patent, he or she cannot later argue that the patent is invalid. Previously, courts applied the rule without looking to the individual facts and circumstances in each case. But the Court held   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Review Copyright Statute Relating to Inaccurate Information Provided to Copyright Office

By Zachary Schroeder and Jacob C. Jones On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP.  The Court agreed to resolve whether 17 U.S.C. § 411(b) requires a district court to refer a matter to the Copyright Office where there is a claim the copyright registration holder made a knowing misrepresentation to the Copyright office in obtaining the registration, but there is no indicia of fraud or material error by the copyright holder.  H&M has asked the Court to interpret the statute as requiring referral merely upon a showing of   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Solicitor General Weighs in on Section 101, Prompts High Court to Grant Review in Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services

By Andy Halaby At the Supreme Court’s request, the Solicitor General on Friday, December 6, weighed in on two pending cert petitions dealing with patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Though the Solicitor General urged on behalf the United States that both those cert petitions be denied, he seized the opportunity, in both briefs, to maintain that the Supreme Court should accept review in yet another case, Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services, and use that opportunity to straighten out what the Solicitor General maintains is a recent, deviant strain of Court decisions interpreting § 101. In   Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Google v. Oracle Heads to the Supreme Court

By Andy Halaby The Supreme Court’s cert grant on the Federal Circuit’s most recent decision in the long-running and highly publicized battle between Oracle and Google appears to confront policy questions as much as legal ones — such as whether the nation’s economy would be better or worse off, and under what circumstances, allowing software developers to copy others’ application programming interfaces without paying for them.  That the Court granted cert, notwithstanding the Solicitor General’s urging it not too, suggests the Court may be prepared to tackle those questions. Google’s petition challenges the Federal Circuit’s determinations that •  certain of   Read More »

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

Share this Article: