Wall St. Gouging Billions on Electric Bills

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, davidcay at me.com @DavidCayJ A Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter formerly with The New York Times , David Cay Johnston is the founder of DCReport.org and just wrote the piece " Reason Blackout At D.C. Appeals Court ." He writes: "New England electricity prices were inflated by up to $2.4 billion last year, a July 25 ruling by a federal appeals court confirms, but the court did not order any money returned to customers.

Kaneka Corporation Will Appeal the District Court for the Central…

Kaneka Corporation Will Appeal the District Court for the Central District of California Decision in the U.S. Patent Infringement Lawsuit Relating to Oxidized Coenzyme Q10 , President of Kaneka Corporation stated, "We are aware of the ruling in Kaneka's case against Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company for patent infringement and will appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Kaneka will continue to protect our interests and defend our organization against any patent infringement.

UC vs. Harvard: Round 2 in CRISPR fight

The University of California is fighting back in its quest to regain control over the rights to the powerful gene-editing technology known as CRISPR-Cas9. On Monday, in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., UC asserted that the valuable patents on the revolutionary tool belong to UC, not the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT - and that the nation's patent office committed serious legal errors when it ruled in 2017 against the University of California.

No Second Chances for Promega Damages Claim

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law that patent owner failed to prove its infringement case under 35 USC 271 and 271 , and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages and infringement. Promega Corp. v.

UPDATE 1-Allergan says court affirms patent loss to Sandoz on eye drug

Allergan Inc said on Friday that it had lost its appeal in a patent battle with Novartis AG over its Sandoz division's rival version of Allergan's Combigan eye drug and said it would file a petition to for a rehearing of the case. Allergan said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas' earlier decision that the Sandoz rival did not infringe two of Allergan's patents and reversed a decision on a third patent in favor of Novartis.

American Intellectual Property Law Association 2017 Annual Meeting to Draw Thousands

Intellectual Property practitioners from across the world will join together with their peers in the creative and legal communities at the American Intellectual Property Law Association's 2017 Annual Meeting. AIPLA's Annual Meeting, which gathers thought-leaders from all areas of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law, expects hundreds of attendees to descend upon Washington, DC this fall.

Federal Circuit Holds that the “Required and Established Place…

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that to find a "required and established place of business" for venue in a civil action for patent infringement, the court must identify "a physical place, of business, of the defendant." Namely, the place of business must be a physical location that the defendant exercises control over and from which it conducts steady, uniform, and methodical business activities.

Court Of Appeals Affirms Patent Board’s Invalidation Of Personal Audio’s ‘Podcast Patent’

The ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION has won another round in its battle to invalidate PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC's patent that purported to cover podcasting. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected PERSONAL AUDIO's appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that the subject claimed to be covered by the patent was unpatentable.

Patent Owner Must Be Subject to Personal Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with a district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a patent owner/declaratory judgment defendant where the defendant's only contacts with the forum were the presence of an exclusive licensee and cease-and-desist letters sent into the jurisdiction. New World Int'l, Inc. v.

Patents Don’t Sue People, People Sue People

On July 13, 2017, The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses. Such a loaded topic should strike fear in the hearts of the many of us who work diligently to protect our clients' legitimate inventions.

The Supreme Court of the United States Significantly Limits Venue in Patent Infringement Cases

As anticipated in our previous article[1], on Monday, May 22, the Supreme Court of the United States changed nearly thirty years of patent litigation venue practice in its TC Heartland decision.[2] In its much-anticipated ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court[3] reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the special-purpose patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. 1400 as codified in 1948 - not 28 U.S.C. 1391 - exclusively controls venue in patent infringement cases.[4] The Supreme Court explained that for the purposes of venue in patent cases under 1400 , an accused infringer "resides" only in its State of incorporation.[5] Thus, under 1400 , venue in patent infringement cases is limited to the State of incorporation of the accused infringer, or where the accused infringer committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.[6] The patent venue statute, 1400 , provides ... (more)

Court ruling detours, but doesn’t stop efforts to curtail feds’ due process

President Trump, accompanied by Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, center, holds up an executive order on "Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection" after signing it at the Department of Veterans Affairs, April 27, in Washington. On the same day President Trump plunged the nation into crisis by sacking the FBI director, a court ruling demonstrated the importance of due process for federal employees being fired.