Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Companies have historically turned to patent pools as vehicles for achieving shared objectives. A patent pool can be formed when a group of patent holders agree to pool their patents for some purpose. For instance, members of a patent pool may agree to pool and license their patent rights to a third party in exchange for fees or royalties. In this scenario, the pooling companies may own complementary patents that enable a technical standard. Pooling the complementary patents can enable a licensee to develop a product or service. In another scenario, members of a patent pool may agree to pool and cross-license their patent rights to one another. This may occur when a group of companies are developing similar products and services. Here, the members can benefit from shared patent rights that allow them to focus more of their resources on developing their businesses and less on patent transactional and litigation expenses.
*May exclude premium content
Say What? Are PTAB Judges Really ‘Inferior Officers’?
By Ben Clark
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex. Before the Court was whether administrative judges of the PTAB have been appointed unconstitutionally.
Implications of 'Amgen v. Sanofi' On the State of Enablement Law
By Bruce M. Wexler, Aaron P. Selikson, Ashley N. Mays-Williams and Susan S. Hwang
The decision appears to take steps to harmonize the prior cases that appropriately were guided by the Wands factors with the cases discussing the “full scope” of enablement that have engendered some confusion in the law.
Equity In Broad and Flexible Fashion
By Kelvin Han
Federal Circuit Wasn’t Chicken to Grant Equitable Intervening Right in Poultry Processing Equipment Case
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term “protection of investments” in 35 U.S.C. §252.
By Howard Shire and Shaleen J. Patel
On March 12, the Federal Circuit granted Janssen Pharmaceutica’s motion to dismiss Mylan Laboratories’ appeal and denied Mylan’s request for mandamus relief, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mylan’s appeal.
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
