Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a list of notable patent law cases in the United States in chronological order. The cases have been decided notably by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court ...
For a list of patent law cases in just the United States, ... (European Court of Justice, C-170/13, 2015), judgement on standard-essential patents; I.
Gilead Sciences and the U.S. government have settled a billion-dollar patent dispute over Gilead's HIV prevention drugs Truvada and Descovy, according to a Wednesday filing in Delaware federal court.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amgen's two patent applications on cholesterol-lowering drugs failed to satisfy the enablement clause of §112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche has settled a patent lawsuit against U.S. biotech firm Biogen over its biosimilar version of Roche's blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug Actemra, according to ...
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. [1] An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge, and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.
In the specific case, Arthrex, Inc., a manufacturer of medical devices, had previously received a patent for a surgical device. They entered into a patent dispute with Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp., claiming the latter groups were infringing on their patent. The case moved into the PTAB, which found that Arthrex's patent was invalid.
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court for several reasons. One is that the Court turned back a considerable amount of academic criticism of both the patent misuse doctrine as developed by the Supreme Court and the particular legal principle at issue in the case.