Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit;
- a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility”; and
- a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision holding that “knowledge of infringement is not enough for secondary liability” is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit. Crouch argues “[t]he opinion’s tone and posture radiate skepticism toward expansive secondary liability.” For more information on the skinny label case, check out the case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
David Inglefield authored a blog post for the Life Sciences Blog highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility.” Inglefield notes how the Federal Circuit “held the claims as not being directed to a natural phenomenon.” Inglefield suggests the “Federal Circuit’s decision provides useful context and practical lessons for determining patent eligibility thresholds.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Thomas Cotter penned a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.” Cotter observes how the Federal Circuit determined that “‘no reasonable jury could conclude that any infringing copies of . . . software that were sold to customers outside the United States were made in the United States or distributed from the United States.’” The relevant opinion is The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Gen Digital Inc.