The U.S. Supreme Court in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. held that a final decision by the U.S. Patent And Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) can form the basis for issue preclusion thereby preventing a court from deciding the same issues already addressed. The opinion can be found here B&B Hardware v. […]
Archive for the 'U.S. Supreme Court' Category
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v Sandoz, Inc., holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error”, rather than a de novo, standard when reviewing a district court’s claim construction findings. The opinion can be read here Teva v Sandoz
Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International
The US Supreme Court held in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International that patent claims drawn to an abstract idea with generic computer implementation are invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter. The US Supreme Court opinion can be found here Alice Corp v CLS Bank International
ABC v Aereo
The US Supreme Court in American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. held that Aero’s retransmission of broadcast television signals qualified as a public performance of a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act of 1976. The US Supreme Court found that Aereo’s activities were substantially similar to the activities of community television providers that led […]
Limelight Networks v Akamai Technologies
The US Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that a defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement if no one has directly infringed the patent. Thus, when claims are being drafted, particular importance should be placed on assessing whether more than one entity be responsible for providing different steps […]
Nautilis v Biosig
The US Supreme Court in Nautilis, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. held a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with a reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The US Supreme Court rejected the […]
Medtronic v Mirowski
The US Supreme Court recently held that when a licensee files a declaratory judgement against a patentee claiming that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of proving infringement. The Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit, which had concluded that the licensee plaintiff bore the burden of proof since […]
Medtronic v Boston Scientific
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2013 in the declaratory judgement case of Medtronic v Boston Scientific. The oral arguments focused on whether the plaintiff in a declaratory judgement action has the burden of proof of non-infringement or whether the historical burden that the patent holder prove patent infringement applies. The […]
Association For Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics
The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down an opinion in the closely watched patent case of Association For Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics. The Court held that isolated genetic material from DNA is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C Sec. 101. Rather, isolated genetic material which is otherwise unchanged falls within the law of […]
Bowman v Monsanto
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Monsanto in the patent infringement case directed to the scope of the concept of patent exhaustion. The Court held that, “patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission. The opinion can be found here Bowman v […]