• Life Sciences Court Report
    in: Court Report  | 

    Life Sciences Court Report

    By Bryan Helwig — About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases, and a few interesting cases will be selected for periodic monitoring. Celgene Corp. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2:18-cv-10775; filed June 19, 2018 in the District of New Jersey (Newark) • Plaintiffs: Celgene Corp. • Defendants: Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC; Synthon BV; Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Synthon S.R.O Claim: Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.: • 8,198,262: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma using 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″ • 8,673,939: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma with 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″ • 8,735,428: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma with 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″…

  • Conference & CLE Calendar
    in: Conferences & CLE's  | 

    Conference & CLE Calendar

    July 17, 2018 – “Drafting and Defending Software Patents to Survive Section 101 and AIA Challenges — Anticipating and Minimizing the Risk of 101, 103 Rejections, Recent Court Guidance” (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT) July 17, 2018 – Technology Cen…

  • 後述
    in:  | 

    後述

                            目次はこちら

    後述

    (BELOW)
    $$ The ion mobility spectrometer or separator 3 may take a number of different forms which will be discussed in more detail below. / イオ…

  • Incomplete Restriction Requirement Stops Clock For Patent Term Adjustment

    In Pfizer v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that upheld the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that stopped the clock running against the USPTO when the examiner issued an incomplete Restriction Requirement. This decision is not surprising, but Applicants should remember that … Continue reading this entry

    Continue Reading ...
  • Prevailing Defendant’s Exceptional Case Restitution Limited to “Reasonable Attorney Fees”

    By Dennis Crouch In Lumen View v. FindTheBest.com, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the the district court’s “exceptional case” finding under 35 U.S.C. §285, but has vacated the award as unjustifiably large. In particular, the district court erred by doubling the fee award as a mechanism designed to “deter baseless litigation.” In the underlying lawsuit, Lumen sued FTB for […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Google and taxes and the UK and … everyone everywhere?

    This isn’t strictly about taxation of IP – that £130m that Google are apparently coughing up to the UK tax authorities is apparently based on their revenues from selling advertising to UK customers rather than from licensing IP (according to press reports; I’m not inclined to assume that these are a guaranteed clear explanation of anything to do with UK tax). But, of course, anything Google earns is driven by IP so I figure it’s pretty fair game for this blog.

    If reasonably accurate, the reports are interesting, because UK tax rules (and the tax rules in most other countries too) aren’t based on revenues booked in the UK alone. Instead, they’re based on the UK profits attributable to taxable activities in the UK. We have some new rules here in the UK, which came into force in April, which attempt to tax profits which have been diverted out of the UK artificially – but that’s still profits, not revenues, and they still need someone to be doing something in the UK.

    The implications of the press reports – and general outcry of ‘too low, too low’ – are interesting. And possibly not entirely thought through.

    To take another example IP business sector that’s been mentioned a fair bit over the past year (albeit possibly mostly in specialist tax reports): knitting pattern designers – particularly freelance pattern designers selling though etsy or ravelry etc. Now, these have been mentioned regularly because of the EU VAT changes at the beginning of 2015, which pretty much required these designers to collect VAT at the customer country rate from customers – which, in the UK causes a fair headache because most of these designers don’t earn enough to be required to be VAT registered here, but aren’t below threshold elsewhere – and the compliance was a mess.

    But the logical extrapolation of the Google etc reports is that one should pay income tax everywhere that one books revenues. Which rather suggests that VAT is going to be the least of a freelance knitting designer’s worries: the VAT side of things can be (to an extent) dealt with by using payment aggregators like PayPal and others to deal with the VAT on your behalf – and it only applies to EU customers. But having to register for income tax and deal with that tax compliance in every single country from which someone buys your knitting pattern? Good luck …

    Yes, Google has sales people etc in the UK, so it’s in a slightly different position to a pattern designer selling to a country other than the one they live in, but the calls for ‘more tax’ aren’t based on those sales people being here, just on the sales revenue Google makes. And, frankly, Google could probably get most of the same UK revenues without a single person being needed here (AdWords signups seem pretty automated to me …)

    The OECD BEPS project has been trying to deal with this – and things like the UK diverted profits tax are an outcrop of that – but there isn’t a simple solution (I’m pretty sure tax authorities would have found it by now, if there was one). So, those calling for Google et al to pay more tax simply because of the revenues they make here should think about the knitting pattern designers too.

    Continue Reading ...
  • THAN IN

                            目次はこちら

    THAN IN

    $$ Put differently, when compared to its undeformed or undeflected shape, the thus-deformed wall occupies more space in one chamber than in the oth…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Vehicle Intelligence v. Mercedes-Benz: Ineligibility as a Proxy for Lack of Enablement

    The Federal Circuit has issued six decisions since December 1, 2015, all of course invalidating the patents in suit, four per curiam (Clear With Computers v. Altec Indus; Cloud Satchel v. Amazon.com; Wireless Media Innovations v. Maher Terminals; and Priceplay.com. v. AOL Advertising.) and two opinions in Vehicle Intelligence v. Mercedes-Benz USA, and Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.. Vehicle Intelligence involved U.S. Patent 7,394,392, written by a patent attorney, on the use of expert systems to determine whether an equipment operator–e.g., the driver of a car–was impaired from intoxication, fatigue, physical disability, or other factors. The…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Parties’ Unauthorized Mandatory Notices Submissions Expunged IPR2015-00040

    Takeaway: The filing of an appropriate notice concerning a related proceeding requires prior Board authorization and is not a briefing opportunity to advocate a desired conclusion in the matters pending before the Board. In its Order, the Board expunged the … Continue reading

    The post Parties’ Unauthorized Mandatory Notices Submissions Expunged IPR2015-00040 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • THAT AT WHICH

                            目次はこちら

    THAT AT WHICH

    $$ Conveniently the shaping orifice is located at the lowest part of the mass in the crucible and the removal involves positively withdrawing…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Garbage in, Garbage out: A quality patent requires patent quality from the start

    The term patent quality gets used frequently within the industry, but what does it actually mean? At least for the patent practitioner, the question of patent quality must start at the very beginning of the process. As the old saying goes, garbage in garbage out. Therefore, to have any hope of obtaining a patent worth owning— a quality patent for the patent owner— quality patent applications must be prepare and a quality prosecution of the filed patent application must take place.

    The post…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Statute Barring Registration of Disparaging Trademarks Upended

    Tam appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), but the Board affirmed the Trademark Examiner’s refusal to register the mark. The Board found that although THE SLANTS has several meanings, the record demonstrated that it was “abundantly clear” that the likely meaning of the mark referred to people of Asian descent. Mr. Tam again appealed, this time to the Federal Circuit, arguing that § 2(a) is unconstitutional. The first time around, the Federal Circuit agreed with the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • THAN ~ING

                            目次はこちら

    THAN ~ING

    $$ Applying a coating 22c to both sides of the supporting beam, given its small size, is, practically, somewhat easier to achieve than coating …

    Continue Reading ...
  • Bye bye GE Appliances–but what about the brand?

    If the measure of a brand is all of the market information embodied therein, then the GE brand has certainly attracted a lot of recent attention. The move of its corporate headquarters from suburban Connecticut to Boston

    has been widely noted, including by this blogger. Of less notice, perhaps, was the report last week that GE had reached agreement with the China-based Qingdao Haier Co. Ltd., a unit of the Haier Group, for the sale of GE’s white goods appliance business, including such products as refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers and dryers. The transaction price was announced at $5.4 billion. To put this amount in perspective, GE was more or less forced to walk away in late 2015 from a $3.3 billion offer from Sweden’s Electrolux, due to opposition from the U.S. antitrust authorities. Electrolux, GE and Whirlpool are the three dominant players in this industry. Haier is reported to have merely a 5% market share, which is not expected to attract antitrust scrutiny (although the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States may still weigh in the contrary).

    What is interesting from the IP point of view are three points. First, the sale would seem to be consistent with the announced move of GE to Boston, to better enable the company to become a leading “high-tech global industrial company.” As much as white goods do not lack for high-tech features (think the “internet of things” and one’s ability at some point to activate his washer from afar), it would appear that it is not the high tech sort of activity GE seeks to engage in going forward, even at the apparent price of transferring the company’s technology in these areas to Haier.

    Second is the fate of the GE trademarks that have anchored its white goods business for decades. The reports on this transaction suggest that Haier will receive rights in the relevant product marks, including MONOGRAM, CAFÉ, PROFILE and ARTISTRY, as well as the GE APPLIANCES brand. Indeed, as part of the deal, it is reported that following the acquisition, “GE Appliances will continue to market the current portfolio of GE brands for a period of 40 years (inclusive of two 10-year extensions).” This seems a different approach than that taken by Lenovo, when it acquired IBM’s PC business a decade ago. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone under 20 years of age who can recall the IBM brand in connection with the PC market. That will not be the case with respect to the GE brand in this case, which will continue to be used in connection with these white goods products for decades to come. How that will work as a branding strategy and redound to the GE brand going forward is an interesting question.

    Third is the possible manner in which Haier will make use of GE’s distribution network for these products to seek and expand the company’s own product lines in this area. As one industry analyst, Johan Eliason, was reported by Reuters.com (see above) to have observed—

    …over time I’d expect them to use GE’s excellent distribution network in the U.S. to source in more of their own Chinese low-priced products which will change the [pricing] dynamics to some extent.

    If this will occur, Haier may then be relying on the same distribution network to move both higher and lower- end products, each under separate brands. How will the company juggle these potentially competing brands and support the brand equity that each enjoys? Will there be a strategy whereby the purchaser of a low-end product will be more likely to trade up as his/her financial circumstances improve, or will the brands stay separate? Could there even be a scenario whereby Haier might rely on a complementary distribution network for its lower-end products?

    More generally, the effect on the GE brand, as the company seeks to reposition itself going forward, continues to bear close watch.

    Continue Reading ...
  • #AliceStorm: When It Rains, It Pours…

    By: Robert R. Sachs Last year I christened the post-Alice impact on patents #Alicestorm, riffing on the hashtag #hellastorm used to refer to the Pineapple Express storms the drenched the Bay Area in December 2014. This year we have El Niño bringing day after day of rain, and so too we have Alice decisions coming down in sheets. Here is a comparison of number of decisions per month since Alice. On average, we’re seeing about eleven Section 101 decisions per month in the federal courts. The overall success rate has been holding in the low 70% range, currently 72.1% (down…

    Continue Reading ...