Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Tagged intellectual property law · clear
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR v. SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California. Summary: An accused infringer’s use of ornamental logos can and should be considered as one…
AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Whether an asserted prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by the invention, and thus…
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. TCL CORPORATION Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Publications shelved in publicly accessible libraries may be publicly available prior art references as of the…
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows for a trademark application to be filed on an “Intent to Use” basis to establish a priority date before the mark is actually “used in commerce.” However, such use in commerce must…
IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Synthesizing and screening tens of thousands of compounds to identify those within the…
LIQWD, INC. v. L'OREAL USA, INC. Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from an unpublished patent application…
FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. Before Dyk, Linn, and Taranto. Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Contract interpretation must be applied in determining whether a sublicense survives termination of the main license.…
HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Before Prost, Newman, and Reyna . Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary : Claims using “consisting essentially of” to define an…
B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. FACEBOOK, INC. Before Lourie , Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Summary: A decision on the merits is not a prerequisite to a finding of prevailing…
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC Before Stoll , Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary : A pharmaceutical company’s statement touting the completion of Phase I safety trials for FDA approval is not…
AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC. v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC Before Dyk , Moore, Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary : Mechanical method claims involving tuning automotive propshafts to dampen…
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRA NCE Before Newman, Reyna , and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the authority to determine when a…
