New Frontiers In Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation. Benjamin Hsing Irene Hudson Wanda French-Brown
|
|
- Luke Johnson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 New Frontiers In Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation Benjamin Hsing Irene Hudson Wanda French-Brown
2 Agenda 1 Developments in Hatch-Waxman Post-TC Heartland 2 Inter Partes Review 3 Sovereign Immunity Baker & Hostetler LLP 2
3 1 HATCH-WAXMAN DISPUTES POST TC Heartland Baker & Hostetler LLP 3
4 TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods The issue presented was whether the broad residency definition of 1391(c) applies to modify and expand the resides language of 1400(b). Baker & Hostetler LLP 4
5 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Baker & Hostetler LLP 5
6 Patent Venue -vs- Venue Generally 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides U.S.C. 1391(c)(2): Venue Generally an entity... shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question... Baker & Hostetler LLP 6
7 TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Baker & Hostetler LLP 7
8 Where Do Defendants Reside? 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Baker & Hostetler LLP 8
9 Where Do Defendants Reside? Entity U.S. Corporations Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) Unincorporated Entities Foreign Corporations Location State where incorporated State where organized Look to the principal place of business* In any district *Sperry Products v. Association of American RR, 132 F.2d 408, 412(2d Cir. 1942) ( For these reasons we think that if a patentee chooses to sue an unincorporated association under the doctrine of United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., supra, 259 U.S. 344, he must do so either at its principal place of business, or at any of the regular and established places of its business where it may have infringed. ). Baker & Hostetler LLP 9
10 Where Else Can a Defendant Be Sued? 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Baker & Hostetler LLP 10
11 Committed Acts of Infringement for Hatch-Waxman Litigation Under 271(e)(2), it is an act of infringement to submit an ANDA to the FDA with the intent to market a generic version of an innovator drug before the expiration of patents listed in the Orange Book. The Supreme Court has described 271(e)(2) as creating a highly artificial act of infringement because it permits an innovator drug company to bring suit before the ANDA filer brings its generic product to market. Baker & Hostetler LLP 11
12 For an Artificial Infringement, Where Does the Act of Infringement Occur? A Retrospective Approach Facts in Hatch-Waxman cases suggest that venue under 1400(b) may be proper in those districts where: 1. The ANDA was prepared; 2. The ANDA was filed with the FDA, which is located in Maryland; 3. The Paragraph-IV notice letter was received; and/or 4. Where the proposed generic drug batch submitted with the ANDA was manufactured. Baker & Hostetler LLP 12
13 For an Artificial Infringement, Where Does the Act of Infringement Occur? A Prospective Approach A district court may likely look to the future in Hatch-Waxman cases when determining proper venue: 1. Congress deemed the ANDA filing to have a nonspeculative causal connection to the ANDA filer s future infliction of real-world market injury. 2. Upon prevailing on invalidity or noninfringement, an ANDA filer would indubitably distribute and/or sell its proposed generic drug. 3. The Federal Circuit has taken a prospective approach to personal jurisdiction in ANDA cases. Baker & Hostetler LLP 13
14 Where Does the Act of Infringement Occur?: Judge Stark s Decision Judge Stark s Decision BMS v. Mylan, C.A. No LPS (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017) [T]he Court concludes that in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation, the acts of infringement an ANDA filer has committed includes all of the acts that would constitute ordinary patent infringement if, upon FDA approval, the generic drug product is launched into the market. Despite the fact that allegedly-infringing products have yet to be approved and marketed, the patent infringement inquiry concerns the real-world impact and consequences that would flow from the approval of an ANDA, the submission of which is the triggering act that allows for the infringement suit in the first instance. Baker & Hostetler LLP 14
15 What Is A Regular and Established Place of Business? 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Baker & Hostetler LLP 15
16 What Is a Regular and Established Place of Business? Judge Stark s Opinion Simply doing business in a district or being registered to do business in a district is insufficient, without more, is not enough. Simply demonstrating that a business entity has sufficient minimum contacts with a district for purposes of personal jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the entity has a regular and established place of business in the district. Maintaining a website that allows consumers to purchase a defendant's goods or products by itself is not enough. Simply shipping goods into a district whether to an individual or for distribution by third parties is not enough Baker & Hostetler LLP 16
17 What Is a Regular and Established Place of Business? Judge Stark s Opinion Mylan is a frequent litigant in federal court in Delaware. In the past ten years, Mylan has appeared in more than 100 cases in the District of Delaware. Mylan's business model is in large part predicated upon participating in a large amount of litigation. It appears that a key to Mylan' s success in the generic drug business is its constant involvement in Hatch-Waxman litigation. These facts must weigh into the assessment of whether Mylan has a continuous and permanent presence, and therefore a regular and established place of business, in Delaware. Judge Stark allowed BMS an opportunity to take discovery, and denied Mylan s motion to dismiss without prejudice to Mylan. Baker & Hostetler LLP 17
18 In Re Cray Three Part Test 1. There must be a physical place in the district. While the place need not be a fixed physical presence in the sense of a formal office or store, there must still be a physical, geographical location in the district from which the business of the defendant is carried out. In Re Cray, No , 11 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017). 2. Must be a regular and established place of business. [O]perates in a steady, uniform, orderly, and methodical manner... sporadic activity cannot create venue. Id. at Must be a place of the defendant. It is not enough that the employee does so on his or her own. Id. at 13. Baker & Hostetler LLP 18
19 In Re Cray s New Patent Venue Test Quickly Spurs Transfers Talsk Research Inc. v. Evernote Corp., No. 16-cv-2167 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2017) The court held that venue was not proper against California-based Evernote Corp., and transferred the case to N.D. Ca. The Federal Circuit s decision in Cray leaves no room for plaintiff to argue that the handful of non-employee, independent contractors present in this district constitute a regular and established place of business. Evernote does not have the necessary control over community members to say that their physical presence in the district is equivalent to Evernote's presence, and the members activities are not sufficiently stable or established to be a place of business. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-86 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2017) The court held venue was not proper against Connecticut-based Lego Systems Inc. The judge noted that while Lego has three retail stores in the Eastern District of Virginia, those stores do not constitute a regular and established place of business under the Federal Circuit's test because they are not operated by Lego Systems Inc., but by a subsidiary, Lego Brand Retail Inc. Lego Brand Retail's three Lego Store locations cannot be attributed to Lego Systems because formal corporate separateness is maintained... Therefore, Symbology has failed to adequately demonstrate that Lego Systems has a regular and established place of business in this district, and venue does not lie here. Baker & Hostetler LLP 19
20 Who Has The Burden? Third Circuit Defendant Has The Burden: BMS v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No LPS (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017) (Stark) (noting that it is Mylan s burden to show that it does not have a regular and established place of business in Delaware. ). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), it is [Defendant s] burden to establish venue is improper. Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. CV , 2017 WL , at *6, n.38 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017). Our court of appeals held in a 12(b)(3) motion, the movant has the burden to establish venue is improper. Id. Seventh & Fifth Circuits Plaintiff Has The Burden: When a defendant challenges venue under Rule 12(b)(3), it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that venue is proper. Faur v. Sirius Int'l Ins. Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 650, 657 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Once a defendant raises a 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, the burden of sustaining venue lies with the plaintiff. ATEN Int l Co. Ltd. v. Emine Tech. Co., Ltd., 261 F.R.D. 112, 120 (E.D. Tex. 2009). Baker & Hostetler LLP 20
21 2 Inter Partes Review Update Baker & Hostetler LLP 22
22 IPR Update i. Will IPRs survive Oil States Energy v. Greene s Energy? ii. Will the PTAB allow amendments? iii. Will the PTAB curtail multiple petitions? Baker & Hostetler LLP 23
23 Will IPRs Go Away? Baker & Hostetler LLP 24
24 Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Oil States Energy v. Greene s Energy Whether inter partes review an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office to analyze the validity of existing patents violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-article III forum without a jury. Baker & Hostetler LLP 25
25 Procedural Background 2012: Oil States sues Greene Energy in ED Texas for infringement of US Patent No. 6,179, : Greene files IPR 2015: PTAB invalidates 053 Patent May 2016: Fed. Cir. affirms (Rule 36) July 2016: Motion for rehearing denied June 12, 2017: Sup. Ct. grants cert. August 24, 2017: Petitioner s Brief October 23, 2017: Respondents Briefs November 20, 2017: Reply Brief November 27, 2017: Oral Argument Baker & Hostetler LLP 26
26 Patents are private property rights. Petitioner s Position McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. C. Aultman & Co. (1898): [W]hen a patent has [been granted], [it] is not subject to be revoked or cancelled by the President, or any other officer of the Government. It has become the property of the patentee, and as such is entitled to the same legal protection as other property. The only authority competent to set a patent aside, or to annul it, or to correct it for any reason whatever, is vested in the courts of the United States, and not in the department which issued the patent. Article III and Seventh Amendment apply. Baker & Hostetler LLP 27
27 Petitioner s Position (c ntd) IPR scheme violates Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. Patentees have a right to an Article III forum for invalidation proceedings. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Baker & Hostetler LLP 28
28 What About Ex Parte / Inter Partes Reexaminations? Petitioner distinguishes reexaminations as not being adversarial: Ex parte reexaminations: between the patent owner and PTO; no discovery Inter partes reexaminations: limited role for third parties Baker & Hostetler LLP 29
29 Respondent s Position Patents are public rights because the right is integrally related to particular federal government action Congress may remove from Article III court matters involving public rights Congress may delegate private right dispute to non-article III courts Seventh Amendment only applicable to claims that Congress assigns to Article III court If Congress assigns to Article I court, Seventh Amendment not applicable Baker & Hostetler LLP 30
30 Respondent s Position (c ntd) Congress may delegate private right dispute to non-article III courts Where Congress has acted for a valid legislative purpose pursuant to its constitutional powers under Article I, it may delegate even a seemingly private right to non-article III courts if the right is so closely integrated into a public regulatory scheme as to be a matter appropriate for agency resolution. In support of its position that it can invalidate patents, PTO points to Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), which held that there are exceptions to the general rule that only Article III courts can exercise judicial power, such as when a case involves public rights. Not entitled to jury because remedy for IPR does not include monetary damages, only equitable relief (cancellation) Baker & Hostetler LLP 31
31 Amendments In The PTAB Baker & Hostetler LLP 32
32 Amendments Before The PTAB Amendments Have Been Rarely Granted Patentee bears the burden of showing that its proposed amendments would overcome prior art of record, and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner. Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR , 2013 WL (PTAB June 11, 2013); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 215); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Baker & Hostetler LLP 33
33 In Re Aqua Products Inc. (Oct. 4, 2017) Holding: It is improper for the PTAB to place the burden of persuasion on the Patentee relative to the patentability of new or amended claims. Going forward, this burden of persuasion will rest with Petitioners (as it does for originally challenged claims 35 USC 316(e)) Baker & Hostetler LLP 34
34 Will The PTAB Curtail Multiple / Serial / Me Too Petitions Baker & Hostetler LLP 35
35 Multiple / Serial / Me Too Petitions Petitioner can file multiple or serial petitions to cover different set of claims or to present different prior art combinations (get around page or word limitations) Follow-on petitions run the risk of undue inequities and prejudices to patent owners, and petitioner s submission of multiple, staggered petitions constituted an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and the Board s resources. Under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) and 325(d), the PTAB has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to institute an IPR proceeding. Me Too Petitions: Lead Petitioner files a petition and petitioners copy it word for word 36
36 General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Informative Decision (Sept. 6, 2017) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,046,820 and 8,909,094 directed to a toner supply container for an image forming apparatus September 2015: Petitioner filed petitions challenging both patents March 2016: PTAB denied each petition on the merits July 2016, Petitioner filed 5 follow-on petitions against same patents using both new art and arguments Petitions denied based on review of factors articulated in Nvidia Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., IPR (May 4, 2016) 37
37 General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Informative Decision (Sept. 6, 2017) Nvidia Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Factors: 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of (or should have known of) the prior art asserted in the second petition; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. requirement under 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after date on which the Director notices institution of review. 38
38 General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Informative Decision (Sept. 6, 2017) Board clarified that the standard is not whether the new art should have been known sooner, but rather why petitioner failed to uncover it when the first petition was filed and presumably after a reasonably diligent search was performed Held: new grounds presented in follow-on petitions attempted to cure deficiencies previously identified in the earlier institution denials and that the Petitioner had also enjoyed the opportunity to study the Patent Owner s preliminary responses to the initial petitions; Petitioner used the denials as a roadmap 39
39 3 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Baker & Hostetler LLP 41
40 Sovereign Immunity Under the Eleventh Amendment The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Supreme Court has interpreted sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to include immunity in administrative proceedings, depending on the nature of the proceedings. Fed. Mar. Comm n v South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, (2002) ( FMC ). Federal Circuit has applied FMC to interference proceedings and observed that contested interference proceedings in the PTO bear strong similarities to civil litigation,... and the administrative proceeding can indeed be characterized as a lawsuit Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 473 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Baker & Hostetler LLP 42
41 Sovereign Immunity Applies to IPRs Covidien v. University of Florida, IPR (Jan. 25, 2017) Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to IPR proceedings. University of Florida is an arm of the State of Florida. PTAB granted the University s motion to dismiss IPRs. Baker & Hostetler LLP 43
42 Sovereign Immunity Applies to IPRs Neochord, Inc. v. University of Maryland, IPR (May 23, 2017) Although Covidien is not binding precedent, the panel decided to follow Covidien and granted the University s motion to dismiss IPR. University did not waive immunity by participating in IPR up until the Oral Hearing without ever mentioning sovereign immunity. University did not waive immunity by its licensing activity. Harpoon Medical is the exclusive licensee and also a real partyin-interest PTAB cannot proceed without the University, which is an indispensable party University retained rights under the license Baker & Hostetler LLP 44
43 Indian Tribes Enjoy the Same Immunity as Sovereign Powers American Indian tribes enjoy the same immunity from suit enjoyed by sovereign powers and therefore are subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 751 (1998). Baker & Hostetler LLP 45
44 Allergan Deal Allergan transferred the patents for its dry eye treatment Restasis to the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe. Allergan will pay the tribe $13.75 million upfront with the potential for $15 million in annual royalties. Restasis has sales of about $1.5 billion in Saint Regis then granted back to Allergan an exclusive license. Saint Regis Mohawk tribe has filed a motion to dismiss pending IPRs on the Restasis patents based on sovereign immunity. Baker & Hostetler LLP 46
45 Allergan Deal (c ntd) In pending district court case in the Eastern District of Texas, defendants opposed Allergan s motion to join the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe as a coplaintiff. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge William C. Bryson, sitting by designation, ordered the parties to submit briefs outlining why the tribe belongs in the suit, or whether the assignment of the patents to the tribe should be disregarded as a sham. Court asked Allergan to identify what the good and valuable consideration was when assigning the patent to the Saint Regis tribe, including any payments made by the tribe for such considerations. Baker & Hostetler LLP 47
46 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, IPR PTAB to address whether the University waived sovereign immunity by filing an infringement suit. Baker & Hostetler LLP 48
47 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Regents of University of New Mexico v. Knight, 321 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Court held that when a state brings suit on a patent claim, it waives sovereign immunity for all compulsory counterclaims to its claim. We thus hold that when a state files suit in federal court to enforce its claims to certain patents, the state shall be considered to have consented to have litigated in the same forum all compulsory counterclaims, i.e., those arising from the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the state's asserted claims. Baker & Hostetler LLP 49
48 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity May Not Extend to Separate Suits Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California, Dept. of Health Services, 505 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting that where a state intervenes in an action and asserts its own declaratory judgment claims it waives sovereign immunity in that suit for a patentee's infringement counterclaims, but that waiver does not necessarily extend to separate suits later filed even if the later suit involves the same subject matter as the earlier suit). A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( [University s] waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in a patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Texas did not result in a waiver of immunity in this separate infringement action. ). Tegic Communications Corp. v. Board of Regents of University of Texas Sys., 458 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ( Although here the University obviously made itself a party to the litigation to the full extent required for its complete determination, it did not thereby voluntarily submit itself to a new action brought by a different party in a different state and a different district court. ). Baker & Hostetler LLP 50
49 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 473 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) A State waives immunity for judicial review of State-initiated interference proceedings We have concluded that when the University initiated and participated in the interference, its participation included the ensuing statutory review procedures; the University cannot invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity, after it prevailed, to shield the agency decision from review. Appellate court is a separate forum. Baker & Hostetler LLP 51
50 Tribal Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Must Be Unequivocal Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Florida,181 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999) Waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied on the basis of a tribe s actions. C & L Enters. Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001) To relinquish its immunity, a tribe s waiver must be clear. Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1989) Arbitration clause does not contain that unequivocal expression of tribal consent to suit necessary to effect a waiver of the [tribe s] sovereign immunity. Baker & Hostetler LLP 52
51 Congress May Abrogate Tribal Sovereign Immunity Congress may abrogate a tribe s immunity from suit by statute. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). To abrogate a tribe s immunity, Congress must unequivocally express that purpose. C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411, 418 (2001). Senator McCaskill (D-MO) has introduced a bill to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in IPR proceedings. Baker & Hostetler LLP 53
52 Unresolved Questions Was the Allergan deal a sham? Can filing of an IPR petition be considered a compulsory counterclaim? Allergan is enforcing the Restasis patents against the IPR petitioners in Eastern District of Texas. IPR petitions were filed after Allergan brought patent infringement suit. IPR may not be instituted more than 1 year after an infringement suit is brought against the petitioner. 35 U.S.C. 315(b). IPR may not be instituted if petitioner filed a civil action challenging validity before filing IPR. 35 U.S.C. 315(a). Has the Tribe implicitly waived sovereign immunity by purchasing patents that it knew were being challenged before a Federal District Court and PTAB? Will Federal Circuit have a chance to weigh in on tribal sovereign immunity? Baker & Hostetler LLP 54
53 Questions? Baker & Hostetler LLP 55
54 Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Philadelphia Seattle Washington, DC bakerlaw.com These materials have been prepared by Baker & Hostetler LLP for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. The information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. You should consult a lawyer for individual advice regarding your own situation.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MALLINCKRODT IP, MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS INC., and SCR PHARMATOP, v. Plaintiffs, C.A. No. 17-365-LPS B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC.,. Defendant.
More informationWill Nationwide Venue for Patent Infringement Suits Soon End? David Kitchen Shannon McCue
Will Nationwide Venue for Patent Infringement Suits Soon End? David Kitchen Shannon McCue Syllabus Brief review of patent jurisdiction and venue. Historical review of patent venue decisions, focusing on
More informationCase 2:15-cv WCB Document 522 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 26017
Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 522 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 26017 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. TEVA
More informationWebinar Series 2017 PTAB Year in Review
Webinar Series 2017 PTAB Year in Review Presented by: George Beck Andrew Cheslock Steve Maebius January 18, 2018 Housekeeping Questions can be entered via the Q&A Widget open on the left-hand side of your
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A123 SYSTEMS, INC., * * Plaintiff, * v. * * Civil Action No. 06-10612-JLT HYDRO-QUÉBEC, * * Defendant. * * MEMORANDUM TAURO, J. September 28, 2009
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-1194-MSS-TGW FUJIFILM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BLUE RHINO GLOBAL SOURCING, INC. Plaintiff, v. 1:17CV69 BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS a/k/a SKY BILLIARDS, INC., Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-3110-MSS-TGW EIZO, INC., Defendant. / ORDER THIS
More informationState Universities Sovereign Immunity in PTAB Trials. June 7, 2017
State Universities Sovereign Immunity in PTAB Trials June 7, 2017 1 Source: NAI & IPO 2 11 th Amendment of U.S. Constitution First constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. Adopted to
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review
January 10, 2018 Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review Karl Renner Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair Dorothy Whelan Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair 1 Overview #FishWebinar
More informationDale White General Counsel Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
Dale White General Counsel Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 1 The context in which immunity was raised in that case in a patent review proceeding How the Tribe became involved in the patent case The Patent and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:17-CV-2471 SNLJ GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationVENUE-RELATED ISSUES IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT & HATCH-WAXMAN LITIGATIONS
VENUE-RELATED ISSUES IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT & HATCH-WAXMAN LITIGATIONS IIPRD SEMINAR- NOV. 2018 MARK BOLAND SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 1 TC HEARTLAND SHIFTS PATENT VENUE LANDSCAPE BY LIMITING WHERE CORPORATIONS
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More informationToday s Patent Litigation Venue Considerations
Today s Patent Litigation Venue Considerations Presented by: Esha Bandyopadhyay Head of Litigation Winston & Strawn Silicon Valley Presented at: Patent Law in Global Perspective Stanford University Paul
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationEmerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings
Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings March 28, 2017 Attorney Advertising Overview Trends for TC1600/Orange Book Patents Legal Developments Scope of Estoppel Joinder Motions
More informationPaper No Entered: October 12, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Entered: October 12, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NETAPP INC., Petitioner, v. REALTIME DATA LLC, Patent
More informationPaper Entered: December 19, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 571-272-7822 Entered: December 19, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ERICSSON INC. and TELFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Petitioner,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
0 0 REFLECTION, LLC, a California Corporation, v. SPIRE COLLECTIVE LLC (d.b.a., StoreYourBoard), a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES -0, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff,
More informationORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO TRANSFER OR STAY
Pfizer Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. Doc. 50 Civil Action No. 09-cv-02392-CMA-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello PFIZER, INC., PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS,
More informationCase 2:15-cv WCB Document 505 Filed 10/09/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 25355
Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 505 Filed 10/09/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 25355 ALLERGAN, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil
More informationPaper 24 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC. Petitioner v. EVERYMD.COM LLC Patent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC
More informationPaper No Entered: July 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 36 571-272-7822 Entered: July 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP, Petitioner, v. TOYOTA MOTOR
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationCase 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996
Case 7:14-cv-00087-O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION NEWCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Petitioners v. ALLERGAN INC., 1 Patent Owner. Case IPR2016-01127 (8,695,930 B2) Case
More informationNos , -1639, -1640, -1641, -1642, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 18-1638 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2018 Nos. 2018-1638, -1639, -1640, -1641, -1642, -1643 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE and ALLERGAN,
More informationCase 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904
Case 1:12-cv-00617-GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AIP ACQUISITION LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-617-GMS LEVEL
More information2017 PATENTLY-O PATENT LAW JOURNAL
2017 PATENTLY-O PATENT LAW JOURNAL Patent Venue: Half Christmas Pie, And Half Crow 1 by Paul M. Janicke 2 Predictive writing about law and courts has its perils, and I am now treated to a blend of apple
More informationInter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check
Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons
More informationPaper Entered: April 2, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: April 2, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VALVE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELECTRONIC SCRIPTING PRODUCTS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. and BELDEN CDT (CANADA INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP and SUPERIOR ESSEX INC., Defendants.
More informationPaper: Entered: May 29, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 9 571-272-7822 Entered: May 29, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationAre the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?
April 2014 Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has before it the first appeal from the denial 1
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationThe Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S. Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. 2017 1 Agenda U.S. Supreme Court news 2017 U.S. Court
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE AND ALLERGAN, INC., v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioners, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., AND AKORN, INC., Respondents.
More informationARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-mc-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOGI ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and others, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 11-6936 (SRC) v. OPINION & ORDER TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant. CHESLER,
More informationCase 3:14-cv MLC-TJB Document Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND...
Case 3:14-cv-02550-MLC-TJB Document 100-1 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1110 Keith J. Miller Michael J. Gesualdo ROBINSON MILLER LLC One Newark Center, 19th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone:
More informationEricsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and a New Frontier for the Waiver by Litigation Conduct Doctrine
Pepperdine Law Review Volume 2018 Issue 1 Article 1 9-25-2018 Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and a New Frontier for the Waiver by Litigation Conduct Doctrine Jason Kornmehl Sullivan
More informationInter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court
Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court Barbara A. Fiacco Duke Law Patent Institute May 14, 2013 Inter Partes Review 1 Overview Background: IPR by the numbers Standing/Privity
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER STAYING CASE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-61798-CIV-COHN/SELTZER JLIP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STRATOSPHERIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER STAYING CASE THIS CAUSE
More informationThe Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP. Introduction
The Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP Introduction Over the last decade, the state of Alabama, including the Alabama Supreme Court, has
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-4 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GARY HOFFMAN, v. Petitioner, SANDIA RESORT AND CASINO, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico
More informationCase 1:10-cv NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts
Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9 United States District Court District of Massachusetts MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SANDOZ INC., Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
3G LICENSING, S.A., KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. and ORANGES.A., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE v. Civil Action No. 17-83-LPS-CJB HTC CORPORATION and HTC - AMERICA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-bhs Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 DOTTI CHAMBLIN, v. Plaintiff, TIMOTHY J. GREENE, Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council,
More informationJurisdiction In Hatch-Waxman Actions Against Foreign Entities
Jurisdiction In Hatch-Waxman Actions Against Foreign Entities Law360, New York (October 19, 2015, 10:36 AM ET) - The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman[1] has increased challenges
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationCase 1:15-cv ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: : : Plaintiff, : : : : : INTRODUCTION
Case 115-cv-02799-ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID # 5503 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al. Defendants. O R D E R 2:06-CV-72-DF Before the Court
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AKORN INC. 1 Petitioners,. v. ALLERGAN, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REALTIME DATA LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION et al., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 5:11-cv-01078-D Document 16 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, vs. Plaintiff, TGS ANADARKO LLC; and WELLS
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ERRED IN RELYING ON INHERENCY TO FIND PATENT CLAIMS OBVIOUS
September 2017 Spring 2017 FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ERRED IN RELYING ON INHERENCY TO FIND PATENT CLAIMS OBVIOUS In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2287 (Federal
More informationThe ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman Litigation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman
More informationNo IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division,
No. 10-1070 ~[~ 2 7 7.i~[ IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., Petitioners, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-CV Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 14-CV-1466 FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS LLC et al., Defendants. FIRST QUALITY BABY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 OLIVIA GARDEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. STANCE BEAUTY LABS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-hsg ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STANCE BEAUTY
More informationPaper: Entered: December 14, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 13 571-272-7822 Entered: December 14, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SAINT REGIS MOHAWK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-307 In the Supreme Court of the United States MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. Petitioner, APOTEX INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationPaper Entered: August 30, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 571-272-7822 Entered: August 30, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP., and ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION
Case :-cv-00-bas-ags Document - Filed /0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 0 Kathryn Clenney, SBN Barona Band of Mission Indians 0 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 00 Tel.: - FAX: -- kclenney@barona-nsn.gov Attorney for Specially-Appearing
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., COVIDIEN LP., et al.,
No. 16-366 In the Supreme Court of the United States ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Petitioner, v. COVIDIEN LP., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189
Case: 1:16-cv-07054 Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMUEL LIT, Plaintiff, v. No. 16 C 7054 Judge
More informationAn ANDA Update. June 2004 Bulletin 04-50
June 2004 Bulletin 04-50 If you have questions or would like additional information on the material covered in this Bulletin, please contact one of the authors: Mark R. Shanks 202.414.9201 mshanks@reedsmith.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. REPORT
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More information"'031 Patent"), and alleging claims of copyright infringement. (Compl. at 5).^ Plaintiff filed its
Case 1:17-cv-03653-FB-CLP Document 83 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1617 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK POPSOCKETS LLC, -X -against- Plaintiff, QUEST USA CORP. and ISAAC
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1483 INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTV STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, and USX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan S. Quinn, Sachnoff
More informationCase 1:09-cv JJF Document 36 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:09-cv-00651-JJF Document 36 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB PHARMA CO. Plaintiffs,
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationCase 2:17-cv RBS-DEM Document 21 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 175
Case 2:17-cv-00302-RBS-DEM Document 21 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 175 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division MATTHEW HOWARD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action
More informationFactors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016
Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-76 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- J. CARL COOPER,
More informationNo OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16-712 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiff, v. LUPIN ATLANTIS HOLDINGS SA, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00558-JRG
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 18-131 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: INTEX RECREATION CORP., INTEX TRADING LTD., THE COLEMAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More informationPost-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues
Post-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues Grant Shackelford Sughrue Mion, PLLC 2018 1 Agenda Background: PTAB's partial institution practice SAS Decision Application of
More informationNos (Lead) & , -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Nos. 2018-1559 (Lead) & 2018-1560, -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, -1565 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Appellant, v. LSI CORPORATION, AVAGO
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:15-cv-02463-RGK-MAN Document 31 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:335 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 15-02463-RGK (MANx)
More informationUnited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06
More informationNavigating the Post-Grant Landscape
Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape John Alemanni Matthew Holohan 2017 Kilpatrick Townsend Overview Substantial Changes Proposed Scope of Estoppel Remains Uncertain Appellate Issues and Cases Covered Business
More information