Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling in Hikma v. Amarin has been discussed as a definitive win for the generics industry and may have implications beyond pharmaceutical and Hatch-Waxman cases. The Court criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its trend of what the Court called focusing on “whether the relevant statements could be read by medical providers as instructions to infringe” when judging induced infringement in Hatch-Waxman cases. Below, stakeholders weigh in on the upshot of the ruling and what it means for pharmaceutical innovation going forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., holding that Amarin failed to “plausibly allege” that Hikma actively induced infringement of its “icosapent ethyl” product,  marketed as Vascepa. The decision, which was originally seen as a so-called skinny label case applying narrowly to the pharmaceutical industry and Hatch-Waxman litigation, scolded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its recent approach and has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors.

The $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy in its dispute with Express Mobile continues to offer important lessons for companies managing patent exposure, even after the court set aside the jury’s willfulness finding. While the case may not become the landmark post-Halo willfulness decision some initially anticipated, it still underscores a critical reality of modern patent risk: once a company becomes aware of potentially relevant patents, how it responds can matter as much as the patent itself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today affirmed a district court ruling that five AGI SureTrack agricultural technology patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It also vacated the finding of no exceptionality and remanded for further proceedings on whether Farmers Edge is entitled to attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Circuit Judge Mayer authored the opinion, joined by Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Lourie.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in ClearPlay, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C., affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement in favor of DISH Network L.L.C. and EchoStar Technologies LLC. The ruling held that the trial evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to ClearPlay, was insufficient to sustain the jury’s infringement verdict on either of the asserted patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions Friday in Pictometry International Corporation v. Roofr Inc., affirming separate Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that held all claims of two Pictometry International Corporation patents unpatentable for obviousness over combinations of prior art.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision finding all claims of Samesurf’s patent directed to synchronized web browsing sessions unpatentable for obviousness. The decision was authored by Circuit Judge Stark and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Chen, who held that the Board correctly construed the central disputed claim term.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential opinion authored by Judge Chen that clarified its case law on statutory versus constitutional standing analyses. The decision ultimately reversed and remanded a district court ruling that had dismissed a plaintiff’s patent infringement suit for lack of constitutional standing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co., reversing a ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and holding that Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. retained sufficient exclusionary rights to satisfy Article III constitutional standing, even after licensing certain patent rights to an affiliated entity. The ruling came after a precedential opinion issued today on the same topic.

On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida affirming the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of patent owner mCom IP’s complaint after finding the asserted patent claims obvious on the same grounds as related patent claims invalidated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However, the Federal Circuit found that the district court improperly concluded that the case was exceptional, leading the appellate court to reverse the attorney’s fee award and attorney sanctions after finding the plaintiff did not develop evidence of frivolous litigation conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming a district court ruling that Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ generic hypertension drug did not literally infringe Actelion Pharmaceuticals’ U.S. patents for its own hypertension drug, Veletri®. The CAFC also affirmed the district court’s holding that Actelion had not proven and was barred from asserting infringement by an equivalent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday affirmed a district court decision awarding attorney fees and costs to Nextremity Solutions, Inc. for an infringement suit brought against it by Extremity Medical, LLC, but denying attorney fees and costs for the successful parallel inter partes review proceeding (IPR) Nextremity pursued. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that found no import violation by redesigned vacuum products. The CAFC affirmed the ITC’s refusal to grant an exclusion order and also agreed that the Commission properly determined that Bissel’s products satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit and holding that the asserted patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The nonprecedential decision was authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Dyk and Stark.