Intellectual Property Report: March 2017

IP Reports

Patients in the Limelight - The Federal Circuit Applies Akamai v. Limelight to Divided Infringement in Healthcare
Steve Maule
In the past few months, the Federal Circuit decided two cases addressing the issue of divided patent infringement in the healthcare field. In both Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the Akamai standard for divided infringement to determine whether patient conduct may be attributed to a physician or third party when determining liability.1 Although the outcomes differ, these cases taken together provide some additional guidance for evaluating divided infringement under the Akamai standard.

To read the full article, click here.

The ITC: Reviewing 2016 and Looking Ahead*
Lisa M. Kattan
The U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC" or "Commission") is a popular venue for resolving unfair trade practices, including patent disputes. Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the investigation of any unfair act in the importation of articles into the United States, including the enforcement of intellectual property rights. While the majority of §337 investigations involve the alleged infringement of U.S. patent rights, the statute authorizes investigations to enforce other intellectual property rights such as trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights, as well as address other unfair methods of competition.

To read the full article, click here.

*This article first appeared in IPWatchdog, February 8, 2017.

The Supreme Court's Impact On Patentable Subject Matter**
Robert C. Scheinfeld
Twenty patents. That’s how many patents were invalidated in only three decisions in the last few weeks alone. Patent practitioners cannot be blind to the erroneous impact the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, ___U.S.___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), has had on narrowing the scope of available patentable subject matter, rendering quite uncertain whether patents directed to computerized business methods or ways of conducting transactions over the Internet, by way of example only, will ever survive scrutiny.

To read the full article, click here.

**This article first appeared in New York Law Journal, January 25, 2017.

Intellectual Property Update: Supreme Court Narrows Scope of Extraterritorial Patent Infringement, Holds that Supplying a Single Component for Combination Outside the U.S. Cannot be Infringement
Paul A. Ragusa, Allyson Mackavage
The Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538, 580 U.S. ____ (2017). In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that supplying a single component of a multi-component invention from the U.S. for assembly abroad cannot be inducement of infringement under § 271(f)(1). Rather, the Court determined that the appropriate statute for determining patent infringement arising from such supply is § 271(f)(2).

To read the full article, click here.

Read More