Contributor Page
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 202 4084000
Fax: +1 202 4084400
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
United States
By James Stein, David Reese
This flare-up has temporarily drawn the spotlight away from another hot PTAB topic: motions to amend.
By John Paul, Brian Kacedon, Cecilia Sanabria
The Ninth Circuit has established a legal framework for courts to use when determining whether to enjoin litigants from enforcing injunctions ordered by courts in other countries.
By Samuel V. Eichner
In Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc. 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir., May 3, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of false advertising claims targeting photos on pet food packaging...
By Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Prosecution Pointer 132.
By Guang-Yu Zhu, David Seastrunk, John Williamson
Digital distribution, gaming, and entertainment companies employ a business model that differs substantially from companies that have a brick-and-mortar presence.
By Andrew Q. Leba
The draft guidance identifies the five types of formal meetings that occur between sponsors and FDA staff to discuss a biosimilar or interchangeable product and describes important procedures for each meeting:
By David Seastrunk, Daniel Klodowski, Elliot Cook
Through May 15, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided 364 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 276 (75.82%) cases ...
By Leon Lin, M. Andrew Holtman
In UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Nos. 16-2610, 16-2683, 16-2685, 16-2698, 16-2710, 17-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018), the CAFC affirmed the district court's holding that the asserted claims...
By Kathryn R. Judson
In XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., Nos. 16-2054, 16-2136, a majority of the CAFC panel applied collateral estoppel sua sponte to an appeal from a district court action following its affirmance...
By John Nappi
Ericsson appealed an IPR decision by the PTAB finding claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408 ("the '408 patent") to be not anticipated and nonobviousness.
By David Lefebvre
In D Three Enterprises, LLC v. Sunmodo Corp., Nos. 2017-1909, -1910 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment determination that the asserted claims...
By John Hornick, Aidan Skoyles
In tacit recognition that patents and copyrights may be impotent, or that IP enforcement may be cost-prohibitive, in the face of widespread 3D printing "away from control" ...
By Leon Lin
In UCB Inc., v. Accord Healthcare Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that UCB's patent on the anti-epileptic drug lacosamide was not rendered obvious by prior art.
By Aaron Parker, Daniel Chung
The fitness equipment industry today is not just dumbbells and treadmills. Market analysts project global sales of fitness equipment to reach more than $13bn by 2022 ...
By Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
New form paragraphs for means plus language under pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph, which is the same statutory provision renamed as paragraph (f) ...
Contributor's Topics