A crucial part of a patent case involves the Markman hearing. There, the district judge listens to and sees evidence, PowerPoints, blow-ups, claim charts, and arguments that each side puts forward in hopes that Her Honor will choose their version of what the words of the patent claims mean.
You might wonder why they
That homologous recombination occurs between the targeted DNA and an introduced plasmid that is homologous to a chromosome does not require that the targeted DNA actually be chromosomal DNA. It requires only that the targeted DNA be homologous to chromosomal DNA. Non-chromosomal DNA, such as mitochondrial DNA or DNA in an additional plasmid, can be
Patent law allows a trial court to make the losing party pay the winner's attorneys' fees but only in "exceptional cases". 35 U.S.C. 285. What counts as "exceptional", you say? Good question.
The U.S. Supreme Court plans to answer it in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184 (U.S.), which
The expense of a big document case lies mainly in the looking for, the sifting through, and the analysis of your client's, and the other side's, megabytes and terabytes of ESI — "electronically stored information", in the words of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
You'd like to shift that burden to
Drug giants Sanofi and Pfizer each claimed that it had first dibs on patenting a segment of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).
Who did have first dibs turned on the date when each of them not only isolated the DNA sequence but also "appreciated" what it had isolated. Sanofi-Aventis v. Pfizer Inc., No. 12-1345, slip op.
Blawgletter not too long ago got one of those machines that heats water and then blasts it through a canister of coffee essence to make — voila! — a steaming cup of joe.
These devices come from a Wide Range of sources, but many of them appear to spring from people who make the coffee-essence-canisters
What happens on appeal after the district court struck an expert report that did not exist until after the other side had deposed the expert and moved for summary judgment and the discovery deadline had passed?
The Federal Circuit affirms, silly. Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Power Systems, Inc., No. 12-1463
You can try a patent infringement case, win a verdict awarding millions in damages, and prevail on appeal as to the other side's invalidity defense, but still lose the case because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office later declares the patent invalid.
So held the Federal Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, on July 2, 2013. Fresenius
To Blawgletter's eye, a complaint that alleges patent infringement bears itself with a certain elegance. Such a pleading often runs but several pages, and in substance it states that the Bad Guy defendant does some thing or things that infringe the Good Person plaintiff's patent. And Form 18 — which appears with its brothers and
Wilson Sporting Goods put the number of Jack L. Frolow's tennis racket patent on 14 models of its tennis rackets. It also paid Frolow royalties on 299 racket models. Yet the district court granted Wilson summary judgment on the theory that Frolow hadn't put forward any evidence that the rackets infringed his patent.
The Federal