A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ended Amarin’s induced infringement suit against Hikma’s skinny-label generic of Vascepa, holding that anodyne marketing references to the branded drug do not plausibly allege that a generic maker actively encouraged infringing u
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Rideshare Displays’ challenge to the Federal Circuit’s invalidation of vehicle identification system patents under Section 101, where the court also declined to follow the USPTO’s own eligibility guidelines.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in CAO Lighting’s challenge arguing that the Federal Circuit’s one-line Rule 36 affirmances of PTAB decisions violate the statutory mandate for judicial ‘opinions’ under Loper Bright principles.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in USAA’s challenge to the Federal Circuit’s invalidation of mobile check deposit patents under Alice, leaving the abstract-idea framework unchanged despite broad industry support for review.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in USAA v. PNC Bank, leaving intact the Federal Circuit’s ruling that mobile check deposit patents are unpatentable abstract ideas under Section 101, effectively killing $222.8 million in jury verdicts.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in CPC Patent Technologies’s challenge to the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 summary affirmances without written opinions in patent appeals, leaving the controversial practice intact.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in a DNA-sequencing patent malpractice case that highlights a structural problem in patent law: inventors can be bound by litigation outcomes through claim preclusion while courts simultaneously hold that no attorney-client duty was owed to them.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a billion-dollar verdict against Cox Communications and held that an internet service provider is contributorily liable for user copyright infringement only when it induces the infringement or sells a service tailored to infringement. Mere knowledge that subscr
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an award of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant entity and may not include profits of legally separate affiliated companies, unless those affiliates are alter egos or otherwise liable.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral restriction that does not violate the First Amendment.