Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”
Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”
SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.
Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”
Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing
Reported by Jonathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller on PharmExec.com
Jonathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller posted an article on PharmExec.com discussing three recent Federal Circuit decisions in patent licensing. First, the article states that “[e]xlcusive licenses can inadvertently reduce the terms of their independent patents.” More specifically, the article notes that “if the exclusive license qualifies as ‘tantamount’ to an assignment, the licensee will stand in the shoes of the patent owner licensor.” Next, the article states that “patent licensors must recognize that the Federal Circuit routinely grants implied licenses to unlicensed continuations, more narrow continuations in-part and reissues—even in the face of general exclusions of implied license rights.” Lastly, the article focuses on Gensetix, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, which the writers claim is “important to licensors and licensees alike . . . [since] licensors may find their patents subject to litigation without their consent . . . [and licensees] should weigh whether to negotiate for sovereigns to waive their immunity with respect to joinder in patent actions.”
Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’
Reported by Christina Tobacco on LawStreetMedia.com
On LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco posted an article reporting on the case BOT M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation of America, where the Federal Circuit issued an opinion concerning “the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.” According to Tobacco, the Federal Circuit found that “the district court erred in finding the plaintiff’s infringement allegations insufficient, as ‘the court simply required too much.’” Tobacco explained that the Federal Circuit “reiterated that a sufficiently pleaded complaint puts the alleged infringer on notice of the accused activity and supports the grounds for relief ‘with sufficient factual content.’”
SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews
Reported by Aziz Burgy on BloombergLaw.com
Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Arthrex, where the Court “ruled in a 5-4 opinion that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.” Burgy explains that the Court applied a “tailored approach” to this case, holding that the “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must be able to review final PTAB decisions . . . have the final word.” Burgy claims that for “many practitioners” this decision by the Supreme Court “essentially maintains the status quo with IPRs and the PTAB.”
Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits
Reported by Patricia Kime on Military.com
In her article on Military.com, Patricia Kime comments on the recent Federal Court decision in Rudisill v. McDonough. Kime states that the case could “result in more money for college or graduate school for an estimated 1.7 million veterans who have been told they can use one GI Bill program or the other but not both.” Kime further notes that “[t]he exact number of veterans who may qualify to request additional education benefits as the result of the ruling is unknown . . . [and this decision] can serve only as a precedent for other veterans to cite in their own fight for benefits.”