Search

The article considers a legal tactic used by high technology industries companies to defend themselves against patent infringement suits brought by patent trolls, individuals or companies who purchase patents for the sole purpose of filing such suits. Companies including Google, Oracle and NetApp have petitioned the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to revoke the patents rather than contest the suits. It is noted that in such reviews, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff.

The article discusses the validity of the American Cynamid v. Ethicon Ltd. case criteria in proceedings related to patent interim injunction. It mentions that the criteria was executed by the House of Lords in Great Britain, in which issues on patent infringement and granting interim injunction should be asked by the court. It cites the case as a reminder that the courts should not consider interim injunctions applications and the respective parties must determine the validity of patent rights.

The article discusses the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on the patent case of Alice v CLS Bank on intellectual property claims. Topics discussed include the case involving patents covering a computer-implemented initiative for mitigating settlement risk and the court's decision that the claims in question were invalid due to their being directed at patent-ineligible subject matter.

The article focuses on an appeal by animal health company Merial concerning one of its patents being declared invalid for insufficiency. It states that the in 2010 bulk all natural ingredient supplier Omnipharm asked the British High Court to revoke two key patents covering Merial's Frontline products and mentions the High Court revoked one of the patents and ordered Merial to pay 40 percent of Omnipharm's costs. It mentions the lower court's ruling was upheld by the British Court of Appeal.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i LP, related to patent invalidity standard. Defendant Microsoft argued that only a preponderance of the evidence would suffice the invalidation of a patent under the Patent Act. The Supreme Court ruling called for furnishing clear and convincing evidence for demonstrating a patent invalidity. The Supreme Court ruling was based on the court case, Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories Inc.

The article discusses the highlights of the court hearing of the case of Microsoft v i4I. Topics discussed Justice Samuel Alito's questioning of i4i counsel which is asking for the retention of the clear and convincing standard for finding a patent invalid and Microsoft's request for the court to reject i4i's argument and citing the preponderance of the evidence as the default standard for all civil litigation.

An interview with Andy Culbert, associate general counsel of software company Microsoft, is presented about the Supreme Court's hearing on the company's case Microsoft v i4i. Some of the issues he addressed include why the Supreme Court should reverse the standard for proving a patent invalid and the impact of lowering the standard on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The article provides an overview of the patent cases to be heard in the Supreme Court of Great Britain. Topics discussed include the court's granting of permission to appeal to Premium Aircraft Interiors against Virgin Atlantic over a patent for business-class aircraft seats, HGS v Eli Lilly involving HGS' patrnt for the protein Neutrokine-a which is held invalid by lower courts and the EMGS v Schlumberger case over electromagnetic patents for finding oil and gas reservoirs.

The article reports on the England and Wales Court of Appeal's ruling upholding the decision that a patent for Merck's product for treating glaucoma, Cosopt is invalid. Topics discussed include Merck's filing of a European patent application in April 1992, generic company Teva's filing of a court action in August 2008 to revoke Merck's patent and the patent declared invalid due to lack of inventive step.