September 2011 Archives

It’s either a case of both parties winning, or both parties losing.

We’re feeling optimistic today, so we’ll say that everybody wins this week in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit ruled that Boston Scientific did not “literally infringe” on a patent owned by Cordis, an interventional medical devices unit of Johnson & Johnson, but that Boston Scientific could not block the enforcement of Cordis’s two patents either.

Internet impulse shoppers, rejoice! Your Amazon 1-Click is safe — barring further judicial intervention.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, did not violate Cordance Corporation’s patents with its 1-Click purchasing system.

Cordance Corporation, in an $84 million patent infringement lawsuit, claimed that Amazon’s 1-Click purchasing system and customer feedback procedures infringed on three of Cordance’s patents.

Genetically modified seeds are big business for Monsanto, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the genetically modified foods giant can enforce its seed patents against farmers planting the progeny of those seeds.

Monsanto invented and developed technology for genetically modified Roundup Ready® soybeans that exhibit resistance to glyphosate based herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup® product. Patents cover different aspects of this Roundup Ready® technology.

Monsanto’s licensed producers sell Roundup Ready® seeds to growers for planting. All sales to growers, whether from Monsanto or its licensed producers, are subject to a standard form limited use license, called the Monsanto Technology Agreement.

Fast and loose are two words that should never be associated with diapers, or with patent analysis.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled on Monday that a patent appeals board's "fast and loose" decision rejecting an applicant's diaper patent disregarded procedural safeguards to the applicant.

Phyllis Leithem's patent application disclosed an improved diaper. Traditional diapers are constructed using an absorbent core of dry shredded wood fiber pulp, known as fluff pulp, interposed between a water barrier sheet and a permeable layer that allows liquid to pass through to the absorbent fluff pulp core.

We love Hulu. We only watch TV online. It’s been six years since we last paid for cable. We’ll never go back.

So we had a mild panic attack when we saw that our beloved Hulu was the named defendant in patent infringement litigation. Good news, fellow Hulu fans: Hulu, while named, was dismissed from the suit. Whew.

The remaining parties, Ultramercial and WildTangent, were in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Ultramercial’s content delivery method was subject matter that could, itself, be copyrighted.

We love fresh fish.

Ideally, we would purchase all of our fish from an ocean-side fishmonger, but most of the time that's not in the cards. Instead, we have to go to restaurants. While the restaurant arguably involves less hassle, it presents a financial obstacle: the market price. We feel awkward asking waiters about the market price, and we usually either choose a lesser fish with a noted price, or cross our fingers that we haven't blown our rent on a single meal.

After reading this week's Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, we now realize that we simply need to befriend a Federal Circuit judge or a federal trade employee for future fish-dining outings, because they are well-versed in fish pricing.

In Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen, a patent eligibility case on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week that the 35 USC 271 patent safe harbor “does not apply to information that may be routinely reported to the FDA, long after marketing approval has been obtained.”

Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (“Hatch-Waxman Act”) in 1984. The act included two critical provisions for pharmaceutical manufacturers: a patent term extension to allow for the FDA approval timeline, and a generic drug development safe harbor.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, the generic pharmaceutical giant, filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals this week to challenge a U.S. District Court decision barring the company from producing a drug before 2025. Alphapharm and Par Pharmaceutical are joining Dr. Reddy’s in the appeal.

The medication in question is Treximet, a migraine treatment developed by Pozen, Inc. and marketed in the U.S. by GlaxoSmithKline. Treximet generated $15.4 million in 2010 U.S. royalty revenue for Pozen, according to WRALTechwire. A Posen-produced drug similar to Treximet is also marketed in South America by Cilag, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.

Here at FindLaw, we understand the pressures of being a legal professional - most of us are recovering lawyers - so we want to help by tossing you that preferred life preserver of the legal profession, the short list.

Today's offering: Top five things to know about the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA).

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is a mysterious court to the majority of lawyers who will never have business there. If you are a current or future intellectual property (IP) attorney whose career will succeed or fail based on the Federal Circuit's opinions, you might find kindred spirits within the FCBA.