Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP Boston, MA Document Search Results (8)

 

Sort by:
Sponsored Results

HTMLYet Again, the Supreme Court Narrows Patent Eligibility, This Time Targeting Computer-Related Inventions
Bruce D. Sunstein; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
October 10, 2014, previously published on July 1, 2014
In the wake of its decisions denying eligibility for patent protection to diagnostic procedures (Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 2012), and isolated genomic DNA (Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 2013), the Supreme Court has denied patent eligibility to...

 

HTMLSupreme Court Sinks Nautilus, Reformulates the “Definiteness” Requirement for Patents
Thomas J. Tuytschaevers; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 21, 2014, previously published on June 2014
In yet another rejection of prevailing norms for determining patent validity, the U.S. Supreme Court refined the standard by which courts assess the clarity of patent claims. Until now, a patent claim was deemed insufficiently clear, and therefore invalid for indefiniteness, only if a court found...

 

HTMLSupreme Court Rejects Inducement Liability Where There’s No Direct Infringer
Kerry L. Timbers; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 21, 2014, previously published on June 2014
The issue of “divided infringement” — where multiple parties “share” infringement by performing different steps of a method claim — has vexed the courts of late, with the Federal Circuit see-sawing between two very different interpretations of the patent law. The...

 

HTMLFTC Rule Targeting Pharma Licenses Is Upheld by Federal Judge
Jordana Goodman; Sunstein Kann Murphy Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 21, 2014, previously published on June 2014
Last November, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a rule requiring advance notice of proposed exclusive patent license agreements in the pharmaceutical industry that exceed $75.9 million in value. Upon receipt of such a notice, the FTC or the Justice Department may then...

 

HTMLThe Supreme Court Bans Aereo’s Service: An Odd Decision With an Odd Rationale
Timothy M. Murphy; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 1, 2014
Last week the Supreme Court decided, in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., that Aereo was infringing the copyrights of the television broadcasters. This decision was not a surprise in light of the comments of the justices during the April oral argument, which I discussed in...

 

HTMLContrary to Common Belief, Patents Can Survive Validity Challenges at the Patent Office
John J. Stickevers; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 3, 2014, previously published on May 2014
The America Invents Act, which went into effect September 2012, introduced new proceedings for challenging a patent before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Inter partes review (“IPR”) is one such proceeding. In the short time that IPRs have been available, more than 1000 petitions...

 

HTMLLitigator’s Perspective: Winning Party in Patent Litigation Can Now More Easily Recover Attorneys’ Fees
Brandon Scruggs; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 3, 2014, previously published on May 2014
The Patent Act’s fee-shifting provision allows trial judges to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation in “exceptional cases.” Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in two cases on this subject, loosening the meaning of...

 

HTMLGreater Than the Sum of Its Parts: Patent Protection is Available for Combinations
William R. Childs; Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 3, 2014, previously published on May 2014
Someone walks into your office and asks: Is it possible to patent a combination of known compounds based on an unexpected synergy between them? The answer remains ‘yes,’ and you should consider citing Sanofi-Aventis v. Glenmark in support.