Filewrapper-old

StoneEagle v. Gillman ? Patent Inventorship, Authorship, and Ownership
March 31, 2014

    In StoneEagle Services, Inc.,v. Gillman the Federal Circuit confirmed that assistance in reducing aninvention to practice generally does not contribute to inventorship. In this case, the issue centered on whether there was a sufficient controversy regarding inventorship for the case to remain in federal court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had "falsely claimed that it is his patent, that he wrote ....... Read More


    U.S. Supreme Court Addresses Jurisdiction In Patent Related Case
    February 21, 2013

      Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE ....... Read More


      Federal Circuit Addresses Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Patent-Related Cases
      February 14, 2013

        In Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Yujiro Nagata, the Federal Circuit weighed in on federal subject matter jurisdiction and provided two important reminders: (1) Just because a cause of action originates from a patent, standards in the patent statute, or even from other patent litigation, it is the present cause of action and claims that dictate whether subject matter jurisdiction is proper; and (2) ....... Read More


        New and Useful - February 6, 2013
        February 06, 2013

          · In Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Labs the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District of Delaware finding that Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. had infringed a patent owned by Allergen, Inc., and finding the patent-in-suit valid. Barr and Sandoz each filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) for a generic version of the drug covered by the Allergen patent, and both ANDAs asserted tha....... Read More


          Jurisdiction over Foreign Patents Requires ? 1367(c) Analysis
          February 02, 2007

            The question before the Federal Circuit in Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation was whether where an accused infringer is shown to have moved its infringing activities offshore to Germany, the U.K. and elsewhere, does supplemental jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367, permit an infringement determination under the parallel foreign patents, where all patents originate from a single Patent Coo....... Read More


            Roundup of media coverage of MedImmune v. Genentech decision
            January 17, 2007

              After last week's Supreme Court decision in MedImmune v. Genentech holding a patent licensee in good standing need not breach the license agreement in order to bring a claim that the patent is invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable, the media has begun to offer its perspective on the case. Below is a sampling of the media coverage, which basically is in agreement that the decision makes it easier to challen....... Read More


              Supreme Court: patent licensee need not cease royalty payments to challenge patent's vaildity
              January 09, 2007

                Today the Supreme Court decided MedImmune v. Genentech, a case about the power of federal courts to decide issues related to patent infringement and validity when one party to the dispute is currently licensing the patent from the other party. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that a licensee need not stop paying royalties, thereby breaching the license agreement, in order for courts to have jurisdiction to con....... Read More


                Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar
                December 18, 2006

                  In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the issue of determining when an invention is on sale within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A claimed invention is considered to be on sale under ? 102(b) if the invention is sold or offered for sale more than one year before the filing date of the patent application. If the applicant files a patent application after th....... Read More


                    Newer Posts Older Posts  

                  Purpose

                  The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                  Disclaimer

                  McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                  Connect with MVS

                  Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                  Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                  Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                    I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.