• Karen L. Beckman, Ph.D.
• Jeffrey D. Blake
• Eric R. Chad
• Joseph W. Dubis, Ph.D.
• Michael A. Erbele
• View More ...

March 19, 2019

Federal Circuit Reverses Judgment of Patent Ineligibility

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 2018-1295 (March 15, 2019). Natural Alternatives sued Creative Compounds for infringing several patents related to dietary supplements containing beta-alanine. 

Read Full Post

March 12, 2019

Completed Registration Is Prerequisite for Copyright Suits

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.Com, LLC, No. 17-571 (Mar. 4, 2019), holding that under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, registration occurs and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit only after the Copyright Office registers a copyright claim; mere application is insufficient to trigger the right to sue under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). The decision resolved a split between those circuits allowing suit to proceed as soon as an application was filed but before registration is allowed and those following the “registration approach,” which the Court upheld. 

Read Full Post

March 5, 2019

Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Case Dismissal On § 101 Grounds

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in University of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Electric Company, 2018-1284 (February 26, 2019), affirming the district court’s dismissal of the University’s patent infringement suit. The University’s asserted patent covered a method and system for integrating physiologic data from bedside machines. 

Read Full Post

February 26, 2019

Federal Circuit Disqualifies Firm For Rule 1.7 Violation

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion deciding motions to disqualify counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) in three appeals pending before the Court: Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v. Generico, LLC, 2017-2312; Salix Pharma., Inc. v. Mylan Pharma. Inc., 2017-2636, 2018-1320; and Valeant Pharma. Int’l, Inc. v. Mylan Pharma. Inc., 2018-2097 (February 20, 2019). Because counsel for Mylan previously represented and continued to represent an affiliate of parties adverse to Mylan in the appeals, the Court found the firm had a concurrent conflict of interest and granted the motions to disqualify.

Read Full Post

February 19, 2019

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in CenTrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Technologies, Inc., 2017-2510 (February 14, 2019). CenTrak sued Sonitor for infringing patent claims addressed to locating and identifying portable devices using ultrasonic base stations. 

Read Full Post

February 12, 2019

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 2017-1694 (February 7, 2019), dismissing Momenta’s appeal of a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sustaining patentability of several claims of a Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) patent Momenta challenged in Inter Partes Review (IPR). The patent at issue covered an immunosuppressive protein molecule for treating immune system disorders, which BMS markets as Orencia.

Read Full Post

February 5, 2019

Supreme Court Rules AIA “On Sale” Bar Applies to Secret Sales

Last week, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, No. 17-1873 (7th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019), affirming the district court’s judgment in part, but ordering a new trial on enablement. ABS initiated the case against Inguran asserting antitrust violations. Inguran asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and infringement of its patent claims covering a method of sorting sperm cells to permit cattle breeders to determine the sex of calves.

Read Full Post

Visit IP Case Updates Blog

Camtek v. Rudolph, Nos. 2012-1681, 2013-1023 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court dismissed Camtek’s appeal of civil contempt sanctions)

Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Systems, Inc., No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir.) – obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for accused infringer; obtained affirmance of claim construction and non-infringement decision on appeal

Rudolph v. Integrated Technology, Nos. 2012-1593, -1618 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court affirmed jury’s finding that Rudolph did not literally infringe, reversed doctrine of equivalents infringement and willfulness findings, and vacated more than $20 million in damages)

Camtek v. Rudolph, Nos. 2012-1681, 2013-1023 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court dismissed Camtek’s appeal of civil contempt sanctions)

Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Systems, Inc., No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir.) – obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for accused infringer; obtained affirmance of claim construction and non-infringement decision on appeal

Rudolph v. Integrated Technology, Nos. 2012-1593, -1618 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obtained favorable result for client Rudolph; court affirmed jury’s finding that Rudolph did not literally infringe, reversed doctrine of equivalents infringement and willfulness findings, and vacated more than $20 million in damages)

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc., No. 2012-1538 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (obtained Rule 36 affirmance of non-infringement decision in favor of client Medtronic)

Cooper Notification v. Twitter et al., No. 12-1615 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2013) (obtained affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client Federal Signal)

Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib., Nos. 11-1572, 12-1168, -1169, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9645 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2013) (obtained reversal of validity on obviousness grounds in favor of client Powerscreen; willfulness and infringement also vacated in favor of client Powerscreen).

AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Apotex Corp., 669 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (in highly important case on the issues of pharmaceutical method patents and Section viii statements under the Hatch-Waxman Act, obtained affirmance of dismissal of patent infringement case involving patents covering methods of  treatment with Crestor®).

Integrated Tech. Corp. v. Rudolph Techs., Inc., Nos. 12-1593, -1618, -1665, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21086 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012) (obtained a stay of the district court’s permanent injunction order).

August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtained affirmance of patent validity and no inequitable conduct in favor of client August).

Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (obtained reversal of a dismissal for lack of standing based on the finding that the terms of an exclusive license did not qualify as a virtual assignment of the patents-in-suit, preserving client AMF’s standing to sue accused infringers).

Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., No. 09-1039, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20408 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2009) (obtained affirmance without an opinion of infringement, validity, marking, and damages in favor of client Bowling).

For Your Ease Only, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 560 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2009) (obtained reversal of a denial of recovery of judgment under a fraudulent conveyance theory).

Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008) (obtained reversal of a denial of attorney’s fees in copyright case; attorney’s fees awarded under 17 U.S.C. § 505).