The Supreme Court holds that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense against a charge of patent infringement
Nautilus v. Biosig – The Supreme Court Clarifies the Clarity Requirement
Contact the author: Andrew Berks Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr.. Inc., No. 13-369 (S. Ct. 6/2/2014) Opinion by Ginsburg. The definiteness requirement, 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (AIA, effective 9/12/2012; previously §112 second para.) requires that a patent “specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or […]
Stanford v. Roche – When is an assignment not an assignment?
This case was a dispute over conflicting assignments by an inventor to Stanford and a private lab where he did supporting work. When infringement litigation erupted between the parties, the defendant asserted it was a co-owner so the plaintiff had no standing to sue. The underlying research was federally funded, and Stanford asserted that the […]
Stay In Touch!
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
Search
Recent Posts
- Immunogen Antibody Conjugate Patent Survives IPR
- Crowd Funding Boost? Crowd Funding Patent Invalidated by Kickstarter
- Apotex loses IPR on Prodrug Obviousness (Institution Denied)
- You think your competitor’s patent is junk? Don’t tell it to the judge
- Means-Plus-Function Software Claims Must Have an Underlying Algorithm
Links
Tags
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1
35 U.S.C. § 156
35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5)
35 USC § 112(a)
ANDA
anticipation
assignments
award of attorney fees
best mode
bioequivalence
Claim construction
declaratory judgment action
defenses to infringement
deference to agency review
definiteness
DNA sequence claims
Doctrine of Equivalents
enablement
Equitable estoppel
functional claim language
Hatch-Waxman litigation
indefiniteness
inequitable conduct
infringement dismissed
invalidity
inventorship
JMOL
laches
means-plus-function
nonobvious
numeric ranges
obviousness
Obviousness upheld
paragraph IV certifications
patent license
peptide sequence claims
pharmaceutical formulations
priority claims
reissue patent
secondary considerations
Standing to sue
subject matter jurisdiction
trade secrets
trigger of exclusivity
written description