Filewrapper-old

New and Useful - Janurary 14, 2013
January 14, 2013

    · The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot. Th....... Read More


    Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict
    January 03, 2013

      Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of its patents, Patent No. 6,201,839 and Patent No. 6,438,180, relat....... Read More


      Obviousness: A Primer by the Federal Circuit
      March 22, 2007

        In a case before the Federal Circuit, the district court's holding that a patent was valid and enforceable was rejected, not only because the Federal Circuit found the holding incorrect, but also because the holding reflected a serious misconception regarding the proper burden of proof each party bears in patent litigation. The Federal Circuit set forth a primer for an obviousness analysis in rejecting the ....... Read More


        Dippin' Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation
        February 09, 2007

          What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable for a Walker Process antitrust claim by an infringement defendant. This is possib....... Read More


          Working until the end of the year, Federal Circuit addresses a Law School Exam Type Case
          December 26, 2006

            The Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of Indiana decision that generic drug makers IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Dr. Reddy's Labratories, Ltd. (DRL) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. infringed Eli Lilly and Company's (Lilly) U.S. Patent no. 5,229,382. The '382 Patent claims chemical compound olanzapine and the use of the compound to treat schizophrenia. The infringers attempted to show that the '382 was....... Read More


            Roundup of media coverage of KSR v. Teleflex
            December 04, 2006

              After last week's arguments before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, the media has begun to offer its perspective on the case. Below is a sampling of the media coverage, which generally appears to think that the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test will either be scrapped entirely, or at least allow other ways to prove an invention is obvious, and therefore not patentable.New York TimesUSA TodayLos Angel....... Read More


              Supreme Court questions Federal Circuit's obviousness test: is it "gobbledygook"?
              November 29, 2006

                In oral argument before the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., several Justices appeared uncomfortable with the Federal Circuit's "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test for obviousness. Justice Scalia, in his typical direct style, characterized the TSM test at various times as "gobbledygook," "irrational," and "meaningless." Other Justices, ....... Read More


                Supreme Court to hear key obviousness case today
                November 28, 2006

                  This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., a potentially landmark case on the issue of obviousness in patent law. The case deals with adjustable automotive pedals in vehicles with electronic throttle controls. Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of patent no. 6,237,565. KSR asserted that the '565 patent was obvious, and the district court agreed, granting ....... Read More


                  Two patents held obvious, "no question" that motivation to combine references existed
                  November 16, 2006

                    .... 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.