On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in an important case for intellectual property holders seeking to navigate the sometimes-conflicting dictates of patent and antitrust law. In Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and Trident, Inc., 396 F.3d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent establishes a rebuttable presumption of market power in a tying case brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The ruling has put the Federal Circuit at odds with several lower courts, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and a host of academic critics, each of which maintain that patent rights do not, by themselves, give rise to an inference of market power, and that any rule to the contrary has the potential to reduce legitimate incentives to innovate.
- October 06, 2005Scott A. Sher and Charles P. Reichmann
On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1) to the "use of patented compounds in preclinical studies ... as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the experiments will produce 'the types of information that are relevant to an [Investigational New Drug application ("IND")] or [New Drug Application ("NDA")].'" Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 2372, 2383-84 (U.S. 2005) (quoting Brief of U.S. as Amicus Curiae 23) ("Integra II").
October 06, 2005K. Shannon Mrksich, Ph.D. and Meredith Martin AddyEnforcement strategies in an industrywide patent enforcement campaign may differ from strategies advantageous in a single litigation. In a single litigation scenario, the goal is to maximize the recovery in the present case without any consideration given to possible effects the present lawsuit may have on future cases. Although this may be somewhat shortsighted as the same players (plaintiff, defendant, and attorneys) are likely to cross paths again and their previous experience will undoubtedly affect their mutual expectations and behavior in subsequent encounters, in reality it is not taken into consideration as often as it should be. Not so in an industrywide enforcement campaign, where the goal is to maximize the monetary recovery for the patent or patent portfolio with respect to all infringers. In this scenario, each case must be considered not in isolation but in the context of the overall enforcement campaign.
October 06, 2005Alexander I. Poltorak, Ph.D.Expert analysis of major rulings.
October 06, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Everything contained in this issue in an easy-to-follow format.
October 06, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Writ Of Assistance Upheld As to Non-Parties in Foreclosure Action Citibank, N.A. v. Plagakis NYLJ 8/15/05, p. 32, col. 1 AppDiv, Second Dept (memorandum…
October 06, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |A recent decision of the Supreme Court, N.Y. County, in a landlord-tenant dispute has highlighted the extreme difficulty facing an owner when a notice of pendency is filed against its realty in an action arguably affecting the title to, possession, use or enjoyment of, the owner's real property, CPLR ' 6501.
October 06, 2005Joel David SharrowRecent rulings of importance to your practice.
October 06, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In June 2005, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States approved comprehensive amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery of electronically stored information ('ESI'). These amendments were next presented to the Judicial Conference on Sept. 20, 2005 and then to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. In their present forms, the amendments would become effective as of Dec. 1, 2006. These e-discovery rule amendments include changes to FRCP Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45, and focus on five areas: 1) early attention to e-discovery issues, 2) discovery of ESI that is not reasonably accessible, 3) procedure for asserting privilege after production, 4) interrogatories and requests for production of ESI, and 5) sanctions and a safe harbor for certain lost ESI.
October 05, 2005Beth L. Kaufman and David Black