Category Archives: Developing Law

On February 19, 2014, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting as a district court judge in the Eastern District of Texas, issued a memorandum opinion and order (available here) denying a motion for summary judgment of invalidity premised on 35 … Continue reading →

On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures (decision available here). The Supreme Court held that, where a licensee asserts a declaratory judgment claim against a patent holder, it is the patent holder’s … Continue reading →

On November 1, 2013, Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit gave a speech in Plano, Texas (at the Eastern District of Texas’ Bench/Bar Conference), on Patent Law and Litigation Abuse (the speech is available here). Among the many notable … Continue reading →

On August 28, 2013, Samsung submitted a request (available here) to the U.S. Trade Representative that the Trade Representative disapprove of the Commission’s remedy in Samsung’s ITC investigation involving Apple. At issue is whether certain Samsung products should be banned … Continue reading →

The GAO has released its August 2013 report titled Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality (available here). The GAO indicated that: Section 34 of AIA mandated that GAO conduct a study on … Continue reading →

On July 21, 2013, Judge Posner (of the Seventh Circuit) wrote an article entitled “Patent Trolls.” Judge Posner proposes to solve the so-called patent troll problem by creating “a rule that barred enforcement of a patent that was not reduced … Continue reading →

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion (available here) in FTC v. Actavis. The Court held that so-called “reverse payments” — i.e., payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers to generic drug manufacturers to keep the generic drug manufacturers’ products … Continue reading →

On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics decision (available here). The Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has … Continue reading →