Author: Benjamin A. Saidman
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer
Monday January 4, 2016
Acorda Therapeutics v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, No. 15-1456 and AstraZeneca v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, No. 15-1460 – Courtroom 201
In two cases drawing significant amicus participation, Mylan challenges the district court’s determination that Mylan, a paragraph IV ANDA applicant, is subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware. In No. 15-1456, Mylan argues that the court wrongly held that Mylan’s required compliance with Delaware’s business registration statutes amounts to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Delaware. In No. 15-1460, Mylan asserts that the court wrongly held that Mylan is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware because it sent its paragraph IV certification to AstraZeneca’s subsidiary in Delaware.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Apple v. Samsung Electronics, Nos. 15-1171; -1195 –Courtroom 402
In a case that has seen a number of Federal Circuit appeals, Samsung appeals from a judgment after jury trial awarding Apple almost $120M in damages, plus supplemental damages and ongoing royalties, for infringement of multiple Apple patents. Apple cross-appeals, arguing a number of errors in judgments related to noninfringement of other Apple patents and Apple’s infringement of a Samsung patent.
Wednesday January 6, 2016
SAS Institute v. Complementsoft, Nos. 15-1346; -1347 – Courtroom 402
This case provides another opportunity for the Federal Circuit to expand its precedent delineating its ability to review an IPR institution decision under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). In this IPR appeal, the petitioner challenges the PTAB’s decision not to issue a final written decision on all claims challenged in the petition, and the USPTO has intervened.
Thursday January 7, 2016
Intelligent Verification Systems v. Majesco Entertainment, Nos. 15-1603; -1657 – Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the patent holder challenges the district court’s decision to exclude its damages expert and related reasonable royalty evidence. The patent holder argues that the district court erred in finding that the expert failed to apportion damages and relied on non-comparable licenses.
Friday January 8, 2016
Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, No. 15-1902 – Courtroom 201
In this case, Glenmark appeals from a district court decision finding Glenmark’s ANDA product infringed the asserted patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Glenmark asserts that the district court erred in applying the “function” prong of the test for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.