|
|
|
|
Articles from Related Newsletters
Takeda v. Mylan: High-Cost Generic Drugs from Baseless Paragraph IV CertificationsThe Intellectual Property StrategistIn Takeda v. Mylan, the Federal Circuit revisited attorney fees in the context of an ANDA application. In doing so, the court provided additional guidance regarding factual circumstances that may support such awards and addressed several of the unanswered questions from the Yamanouchi v. Danbury opinion.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Former EmployeesEmployment Law StrategistLaptops, thumb drives, data sticks, e-mails, and USB ports make it easy for employees to walk out of a company with valuable information, customer lists, and trade secrets. An employer’s remedies are often limited.
Virgin Advantage from a New, Near-Shore Corporate Frontiere-Commerce Law & StrategyWith bona fides now suitably established, is it possible to actively leverage the USVI’s fiber and bandwidth assets to deliver greater competitive and stakeholder advantage to the enterprise? Yes it is; an economic development program chartered in law by the USVI government may be of particular interest to e-commerce and other knowledge-based businesses.
Addressing Generational ‘Tech Gaps’ for More Efficient, Effective Legal PracticeLJN's Legal Tech NewsletterIt turns out there are some rather sharp differences in how technology is perceived and used by legal professionals among different generations. These differences, or "generational gaps," can lead to issues in the workplace between colleagues, as well as less efficient use of time and resources by law firm or company employees. Naturally, each of these concerns is amplified given difficult economic circumstances.
Other Litigation Newsletters
Patent Strategy & Management Archives
Top Stories
![]() We're sorry. Your computer must be equipped with a browser capable of rendering HTML 4.01 and running JavaScript. In your browser, you must enable JavaScript. In addition, you should enable style sheets.
|
Headlines
In re Kubin: Federal Circuit Ignores Principles of Structural Obviousness in Applying ‘Obvious to Try’ TestIn re Kubin now appears to be the first case in which a defined biochemical structure was found to be obvious despite the fact that the structure was previously unknown and unpredictable.
Properly Name Inventors on PatentsA patent can be held invalid for incorrect inventorship, and co-inventorship of one, even relatively insignificant, claim can entitle a co-inventor to an ownership stake in every claim of the patent. Moreover, failure to join all co-inventors/owners as plaintiffs can prevent the real party in interest from enforcing a patent. A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc., is illustrative of such risks.
Damage Calculations Post eBay: The Economic ConsiderationsThis article provides an overview of how various courts have dealt with the question of post-verdict compensation in the wake of the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C. verdict.
Patent Opinions, Willfulness and InducementRecent decisions have begun to fill in the gaps left by In re Seagate Technology, LLC. They suggest that a competent opinion is still an effective defense to a willfulness charge, and that a jury may consider a defendant’s failure to obtain an opinion when determining the defendant’s intent for purposes of willfulness and inducement. Also, legitimate trial defenses may be sufficient to establish that a defendant’s actions at the time of infringement were not "objectively reckless."
July issue in PDF format
|
| |
|
|
