Posts Tagged: "patent infringement"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Ascendis Pharma A/S v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., affirming a district court order that upheld the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision denying Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2). The ruling concluded that Ascendis was not entitled to a mandatory stay because Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its original complaint and filed a virtually identical refiled complaint to restart the statutory deadline. Judge Stoll authored the opinion, joined by Judges Lourie and Chen.

Nearly every operating company valued at greater than $20 billion in market capitalization is likely to be accused of patent infringement at some point. The high likelihood of utilizing another person or company’s patented technology led to an explosion of patent litigation activity over the last 30 years. Often, inventions emerge without a specific product in mind, and the strategy for the invention-turned-patent lacks a clear vision. This has been the way of invention since the patent offices were first formed and legal IP protection became a constitutionally ordained government program.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted the Solicitor General’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case concerning induced patent infringement in the pharmaceutical skinny label context. The order followed the filing of a merits response brief by Amarin on March 20, defending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that found Amarin plausibly alleged that Hikma Pharmaceuticals actively induced infringement of patents covering uses of Amarin’s cardiovascular drug Vascepa.

A panel on day one of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 didn’t mince words: the voluntary patent licensing ecosystem is functionally broken, and the IP community needs to understand why. That was the diagnostic consensus from the panel titled Patent Dealmaking, Monetization & Licensing: An Examination of Capital, Risk, and Deal Flow, moderated by Brian O’Shaughnessy (Dinsmore & Shohl) and featuring Michael Gulliford (Soryn IP Capital), Louis Carbonneau (Tangible IP), and Dan Kesack (WTW Insurance).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on Friday in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CAFC determined that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc., proved that Apple violated Section 337 through the sale and import of certain Apple Watch models, ultimately “finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings.” The CAFC also held that the asserted patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches.

In 2008, a medical device company I represented, Datascope Corporation, won a hard-fought victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a federal jury in Baltimore in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University and its licensee against my client. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a decision in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., affirming a district court’s dismissal of AIT’s patent infringement suit against Salesforce for lack of constitutional standing. The court determined that the district court correctly concluded that Applications in Internet Time, LLC (AIT) had no exclusionary patent rights at the inception of the lawsuit. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief to cure the constitutional standing defect.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., affirming a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of no infringement. The court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim with separately listed limitations requires separate corresponding structures, and because the accused product utilized a single structure for both limitations, it did not infringe as a matter of law.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday filed a joint Statement of Interest preferencing strong injunctive relief for patent owners over courts valuing patents. The brief comes just a few months after the two agencies filed a joint statement of interest at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) arguing that exclusion orders should be the presumptive remedy for infringement there.

Every day, Americans rely on technologies that were unimaginable just a generation ago – from advanced medical devices and artificial intelligence–powered applications to connected consumer electronics. These breakthroughs did not emerge in a vacuum. They are the product of an innovation ecosystem shaped by policy choices. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)—an agency with the extraordinary power to block imports and, in turn, influence the direction of American technology policy—has drifted out of that balance. To align with the Trump Administration’s intellectual property priorities and pro-investment agenda, the ITC is in urgent need of reform.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC vacating a district court’s summary judgment rulings on both inequitable conduct and a Walker Process fraud claim. The court determined that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on both issues and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision on Friday reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment that REGENEXBIO, Inc.’s patent claims were ineligible as directed to a natural phenomenon. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that REGENXBIO’s and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania’s gene therapy patent claims were directed to a natural phenomenon and therefore patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the unanimous CAFC reversed that decision, thereby reviving REGENEXBIO’s infringement suit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision finding Sony’s Playstation controllers and consoles did not infringe Genuine Enabling Technology’s (GET’s) patent for computer input devices. GET alleged that Sony directly and indirectly infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730 via certain Playstation products. Specifically, GET said that the products’ Bluetooth module “synchronized user input from controller buttons with input from controller sensors,” thereby meeting the claims’ “encoding means” limitation.