Category: Uncategorized
-
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., 608 U.S. _ (2026)
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., 608 U.S. ___ (2026), is an important development in the continuing balance between pharmaceutical patent protection and generic drug access. The case sits at the intersection of three highly practical areas: Hatch-Waxman generic approval, Orange Book method-of-use patents, and induced infringement under…
-
GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.: Federal Circuit Invalidates Streaming Patents Under § 101 Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitDocket: Nos. 24-1669, 24-1744Opinion Date: February 9, 2026Areas of Law: Patents; Intellectual PropertyPanel: Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto In GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a $2.5 million jury verdict in favor of GoTV and…
-
JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, CO. v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
Docket: 23-1715 Opinion Date: July 28, 2025 Judge: Timothy Dyk Super Lighting sued CH Lighting for infringing three patents related to LED tube lamps. CH Lighting conceded infringement of two patents before trial. The district court excluded CH Lighting’s evidence on the validity of these two patents and granted Super Lighting’s motion for judgment as a matter of…
-
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS v. QIAGEN SCIENCES, LLC
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 23-2350 Opinion Date: August 13, 2025 The case concerns two patents related to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing, owned by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Labcorp Genetics, Inc., and The General Hospital Corporation. The patents describe techniques for enriching specific regions of DNA to make sequencing…
-
POWERBLOCK HOLDINGS, INC. v. IFIT, INC.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 24-1177 Opinion Date: August 11, 2025 The dispute centers on a patent for a system that automates the adjustment of selectorized dumbbells using an electric motor. The patent describes a dumbbell with stacks of weight plates on each side, a handle, and a movable selector that, when positioned,…
-
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 23-2117 Opinion Date: August 8, 2025 The dispute centers on allegations by Mondis Technology Ltd. and related entities that LG Electronics Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary infringed claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180. The patent describes a display unit, such as a computer monitor, that…
-
FMC CORPORATION v. SHARDA USA, LLC
Docket: 24-2335 Opinion Date: August 1, 2025 Judge: Raymond Chen FMC Corporation owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,107,416 and 9,596,857, which relate to insecticidal and miticidal compositions. FMC sued Sharda USA, LLC for patent infringement, alleging that Sharda’s product, WINNER, infringed on these patents. The patents claim compositions comprising bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid, with specific weight ratios. FMC sought…
-
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a memorandum concerning final written decision procedures for America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings
The new procedure requires Board panels to address all grounds raised in the petition in their final written decisions. This approach is designed to promote compact decision making. The memorandum applies to all proceedings where an oral hearing has not yet occurred. The new procedure does not impact institution decisions. Here is the MEMORANDUM, which…
-
USPTO issues memorandum clarifying enforcement of Rule 104(b)(4) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings
the USPTO issued a memorandum explaining that the Office will enforce and no longer waive the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) that an IPR petition “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” To comply with Rule 104(b)(4), an IPR petitioner may not use…
EPIMED RESEARCH 