The reforms introduced to the justice system by the publication of Law No. 21,394, dated November 30, 2021, has regulated transitory provisions on the procedure before courts with civil jurisdiction, Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court, for civil and commercial matters, with provisory effect, to facilitate the implementation of the permanent provisions of the Law ...
On November 30, 2021, Law No. 21,394 was published, introducing a set of reforms to the justice system to promote efficiency in judicial proceedings and to limit the need for physical presence in Courts. In addition, on December 13, 2021, the Supreme Court issued Act N°271-2021, enacting a decree (auto acordado) to regulate the remote appearance at pleadings and hearings before courts with civil jurisdiction, the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court ...
On November 30, 2021, Law No. 21,394 was published, introducing a set of reforms to the justice system to promote efficiency in judicial proceedings and to limit the need for physical presence in Courts. In addition, on December 13, 2021, the Supreme Court issued Act N°271-2021, enacting a decree (auto acordado) to regulate the remote appearance at pleadings and hearings before courts with civil jurisdiction, the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court ...
Law No. 21,394, officially published on November 30, 2021, introduced a set of reforms to the justice system to promote efficiency in judicial processes and to limit the need for physical presence in courts. For that purpose, the Law reformed certain provisions of the Organic Code of Courts, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Electronic Procedure Law, regarding the collection proceeding: Legal deadline to file an opposition to the collection complaint ...
On 30 September 2021, the Government passed into law the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Ordinance 2021 and the Limited Partnership Fund and Business Registration Legislation (Amendment) Ordinance 2021 (the Ordinances). These new laws will enable foreign investment funds to be re-domiciled and registered in Hong Kong as open-ended fund companies (OFCs) or limited partnership funds (LPFs). The Ordinances will come into effect on 1 November 2021 ...
MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1413 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021) For those interested in an important Section 112 written description case, we recommend reading the Juno Therapeutics decision below, one of many significant precedential opinions issued this week. We choose as our Case of the Week another important decision issued this week, on the issue of damages, discovery, and expert disclosures ...
BOT M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation, Appeal No. 2020-2218 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed the stringency of pleading requirements alleging patent infringement. At issue in the case was Bot M8 LLC’s lawsuit against Sony Corporation of America, alleging infringement of six patents relating to gaming machines ...
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2020-2167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week turned on issues of claim construction. In particular, the issue was the effect of statements made by the applicant during the patent’s prosecution. The Court held that the district court erred in applying too narrow a construction, and reversed with a modified construction ...
DBN Holding, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2020-2342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) The Federal Circuit issued only one precedential decision this week relating to a patent case. On this appeal—the fourth in the case—the issues were far removed from issues concerning patent law, and instead related to modifications of consent orders. Thus, we cover the case only in abbreviated form ...
BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonw. Scientific and Indus. Research Org., Appeal Nos. 2020-1415, -1416, -1919, -1920 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) Our Case of the Week, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has something for everyone: questions of venue and statutory interpretation, invalidity and written descriptions, contracts and co-ownership of patents, and willfulness, injunctions, and royalty rates ...
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to Western District of Texas Judge Alan D ...
The Federal Circuit issued numerous precedential opinions last week, two of which answered long simmering questions about inter partes reviews (IPRs). Below we discuss a case addressing whether admissions of prior art in the patent itself can be considered as prior art in an IPR. Our Case of the Week reversed Federal Circuit precedent concerning the scope of IPR Estoppel ...
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and dissent, provided an extended discussion of obviousness analyses. This discussion comes in the context of the Federal Circuit affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s finding, namely, that U.S. Patent Nos ...
Biogen International GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1933 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) For the second time in two weeks, our Case of the Week focuses on the written description requirement, in particular where the patent claims a range. In fact, all three precedential decisions issued this week concern issues relating to patents that claim numerical ranges. Below, we discuss two of those cases in our “Also This Week” section ...
Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1001, -1002 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit discussed the corroboration requirement concerning the amount of evidence needed to successfully invalidate a patent as anticipated. Mosaic claimed that Ridge infringed Mosaic’s patent and trade dress for a money-clip wallet. Ridge countered that Mosaic infringed Ridge’s own patent for a money-clip wallet ...
ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1092 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion this week, the Court considered issues arising from infringement litigation concerning appellee ADASA’s U.S. Patent No. 9,798,967 (the ’967 patent), which is directed to systems and methods for encoding radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. Following a $26 ...
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1729 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) Our Case of the Week again focuses on numerical values in claims. Last week we addressed a case involving whether there was written description support for a number in a claim, and we addressed a similar issue the week before. This week, our case focuses on the meaning and scope of a number in a claim ...
Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) In the only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision concerning the effect of collateral estoppel in an inter partes review (IPR) based on a previous IPR decision ...
University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review decision finding claims directed to light-based disinfecting methods to be obvious over the prior art. This case provides a helpful example of how negative claim limitations can affect an obviousness determination ...
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeal Nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) Our Case of the Week this week focuses on the written description requirement when the patent claims a range. The Court addressed a circumstance where the application disclosed a number of values within a range, but did not disclose the range itself ...
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1683, -1763, -1764, 1827 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2021) Our Case of the Week reinforces a developing body of law concerning standing to appeal from an adverse PTAB decision in an IPR. This is the second such decision arising from a global settlement between Apple and Qualcomm this year. We wrote about the first case, in April this year, here ...
In re: Vivint, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1992 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2021) In an appeal from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a party may challenge the validity of an issued patent by ex parte reexamination when the challenger has repeatedly tried to use inter partes review (“IPR”) to forward the same argument. The Federal Circuit held that, when applying 35 U.S.C ...
Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 2021-1638 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2021) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a forum selection clause in an NDA may prohibit a party from petitioning for an inter partes review with the PTAB. Kannuu filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the district court to compel Samsung to withdraw their petitions. The district court denied the motion, and Kannuu appealed ...
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by Qualcomm. In our Case of the Week, we focus on the first of those cases. In our Also This Week section below, we cover the second case ...
