Category Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Novartis appeals to SCOTUS rehearing of FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on January 25, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 24, 2022 Second Update (January 24, 2023): Novartis petitioned SCOTUS with two questions presented:  1) Whether … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Negative Limitations, U.S. Supreme Court, Written description | Leave a comment

WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

Posted on June 26, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 16-1011 PROST, MOORE, STOLL June 22, 2018 Brief summary: SCOTUS reversed the FC, holding that WG’s “award for [extraterritorial] lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284”. Summary: WesternGeco (WG) sued Ion Geophysical (ION), alleging ION infringed … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Lost Profits, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al.

Posted on June 13, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SCOTUS No. 15-1039 (decided with 15-1195, Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.) June 12, 2017 Brief Summary: FC issuance of “a federal injunction prohibiting Sandoz from marketing Zarxio until 180 days after licensure” reversed since “the applicant may provide … Continue reading →

Posted in Biosimilars, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Posted on May 27, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SCOTUS Docket No. 13-896 May 26, 2015 Supreme Court of The United States Brief Summary: FC decision “that the trial court erred in excluding Cisco’s evidence of its good-faith belief that Commil’s patent was invalid” incorrect; SCOTUS concludes “defendant’s belief … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 13-352 Decided March 24, 2015 Brief Summary: “[I]ssue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts” but may also apply “where a single issue is before a … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue Preclusion, Trademarks, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al.

Posted on January 28, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 13-854 U.S. Supreme Court (opinion delivered by J. Breyer) January 20, 2015 Brief Summary: The FC was found to have erred in not accepting the DC’s factual findings regarding the meaning of the term “molecular weight” without finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al.

Posted on June 5, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 12-786 Supreme Court of the United States June 2, 2014 Brief Summary: Liability for inducement (§271(b)) must be predicated on direct infringement (“under §271(a) or any other statutory provision”). Summary: Akamai is the exclusive licensee of a patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Posted on June 3, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 13-369 Supreme Court of the United States June 2, 2014 Brief Summary: Supreme Court vacated the FC decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the standard is “that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

Posted on January 23, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 12-1128 U.S. Supreme Court (Breyer) January 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Where a patentee alleges infringement by a licensee and the licensee moves for DJ of non-infringement, the burden of proof remains with the patentee to show infringement (e.g., … Continue reading →

Posted in Licensing, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment