Zoltek Patent Takings Rehearing Denied: No Fifth Amendment Protection

Zoltek v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2006, en banc denied).

Inequitable Conduct: Ferring Asks for Supreme Court Review

Ferring v. Barr (on petition for certiorari).

Supreme Court: MedImmune v. Genentech

The CAFC has held on a number of occasions that a current licensee has no standing to sue for declaratory judgment because there is no immediate threat of being sued for patent infringement.  However, this conclusion pushes against the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Lear v. Adkins which held that a public policy interest in invalidating bad patents was strong enough to warrant a limitations on a licensee’s ability to give up its right to challenge a patent’s validity.  After MedImmune, a licensee, is appealing the dismissal of its DJ action and has presented the following question to the Supreme Court for review:

KSR v. Teleflex: Rethinking Obviousness

Telefleximage KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

Supreme Court: Challenging a Patent During the License Term

MedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2006).

Injunctive Relief and the “Working” Standard

Elephant in the roomeBay v. MercExchange is such a short decision, but we are having an exciting time unwrapping the tidy package. Look at the following quote from the decision involving the question of “working” the invention.

Supreme Court: Time to Rethink Obviousness

PatentlyOImage025_smallKSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2006).

Exhale: Supreme Court Dismisses Metabolite Controversy

Patent holders are breathing a sigh of relief with today's dismissal of LabCorp v. Metabolite -- a case pending before the Supreme Court.  That case had the potential of dramatically altering the landscape of patentable subject matter -- especially relating to method patents.  The case was dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG). In the IPO Amicus brief, we made this argument (as well as others) [IPO Brief]

KSR v. Teleflex — Certiorari Appears Likely

At the end of May, the Solicitor General filed an invited amicus brief supporting KSR's petition that asks the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the obviousness standard for patentability.  The petition questions whether obviousness should require proof of some suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references.

Patent Validity as a Factor in Determining Injunctive Relief?

KennedyJustice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in eBay included a number of striking comments including the following:

Debate on Obviousness Standard Reaches New Level

PatentlyOImage025_smallKSR International v. Teleflex (On Petition for Certiorari)

Internet Radio: eBay v. MercExchange

The Supreme Court recently turned the injunction pendulum — giving district courts a looser hand to determine whether to issue an injunction.  Intel’s GC Bruce Sewell says this:
There will now be a greater willingness to take cases to trial . . . [since] if you lose a case there is a potential you can compensate the plaintiff in dollars rather than having your whole company shut down

I was recently part of an online radio program discussing the eBay case.  The “Coast-to-Coast” discussion included Rachel Krevans from MoFo and the Legal Talk Network show was hosted by attorneys J. Craig Williams and Robert Ambrogi.

Inherent Anticipation at the Supreme Court

AIPLATalk209SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex (on petition for writ of certiorari)

MedImmune v. Genentech — Licensee’s Right To Challenge Patent Validity (Briefs on the Merits)

ChimericImmunoglobulinMedImmune v. Genentech (Supreme Court 2006).

FTC v. Schering Plough — DOJ Rebuffs FTC in Reverse-Payment Antitrust Litigation

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have long fought over who should control and enforce antitrust laws within the U.S.  That debate continues . . .

Orange Book Declaratory Judgment Question Goes to Supreme Court

Apotex v. Pfizer (On petition for certiorari).

LabCorp v. Metabolite Decision Coming Soon

The eBay case is a major decision, but Justice Kennedy’s concurrence that derides business method patents appears to foreshadow the outcome of the pending appeal of Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp) v. Metabolite Laboratories (Supreme Court 2006).