By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-839-RGA (D.Del., November 30, 2016), the Court issued its claim constructions for the two phrases in dispute in claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ‘298 patent”) and found that claim 8 of the ‘298 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it is a dependent claim that contradicts a limitation of the claim from which it depended – claim 1.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the Federal Circuit’s decision regarding international patent exhaustion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
In a recent opinion out of the District of Massachusetts, the court ordered that a patent infringement dispute between two Massachusetts-based competitors in the lighting systems industry would be allowed to proceed.
The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for rehearing en banc, effectively reiterating that the PTAB may, in its sole discretion, choose to institute an IPR proceeding on some, but not all, of the patent claims challenged in an IPR petition.
The value of reliance on a trade-mark registration, as opposed to prior use, stands out sharply in the recent Federal Court of Appeal of Canada case Pizzaiolo Restaurants Inc. v. Les Restaurants La Pizzaiolle Inc. ( 2016 FCA 256 October 28, 2016).