Category: patent infringement

$2.18 Billion: That’s what US Court Directs Intel to Pay for Patent Infringement

Recently, a federal jury in Texas awarded damages for patent infringement to the tune of US$ 2.18 billion – one of the largest in US history. The case is VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 21-57, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco). Intel Corp. (“Intel”) a well-known chip maker was handed … Continue reading $2.18 Billion: That’s what US Court Directs Intel to Pay for Patent Infringement

Read more »

Sunovion Pharmaceuticals and Bial Portela Files Patent Infringement Suit against A Host of Indian Drug Makers

Recently, The Bial – Portela & CA (“Bial”), a Portugal-based pharmaceutical company, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals (“Sunvion”), a US-based pharmaceutical company have instituted suit of patent infringement against eight drug makers in the District Court of Delaware. The eight defendants are: Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Torrent Pharma Inc., Alkem Laboratories and S&B Pharma, Inc., Lupin Limited and … Continue reading Sunovion Pharmaceuticals and Bial Portela Files Patent Infringement Suit against A Host of Indian Drug Makers

Read more »

Daedalus Blue Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement

Recently Daedalus Blue LLC has sued tech giant Microsoft over patent infringement. The suit has been filed in Western District of Texas (case no 6:20-cv-01152, Daedalus Blue LLC v. Microsoft Corporation). Daedalus Blue claims that Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing product infringes its patents which essentially deals with cloud and cloud-based technology. Daedalus Blue is seeking … Continue reading Daedalus Blue Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement

Read more »

Tearing Down A Product to Look for Patent Infringement

In today’s world where most companies depend on other manufacturers to supply them with the necessary components to build a desired end product, it becomes strikingly important for a patent asserting body to understand the infringing parties and their role and significance in carrying out the infringement by the accused product. Product teardown reporting is … Continue reading Tearing Down A Product to Look for Patent Infringement

Read more »

Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Upon successful practicing in the area of Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Litigation over the decade, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys together with its IP Asset Management Practice, IIPRD, feels immense pleasure to announce the recent opening of its 8th branch in Jalandhar. With years of helping corporates identify, create, protect, promote and … Continue reading Khurana & Khurana Opens Jalandhar (Punjab) Office

Read more »

BLACKBERRY SUES NOKIA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

The once powerful mobile phone companies BlackBerry and Nokia are in the headlines again, not for their new technological developments but because of their legal battle. The Valentine’s Day card for Nokia was in the form of complaint entailing 11 items that Blackberry did not like about it. The complaint listed out the 11 patents … Continue reading BLACKBERRY SUES NOKIA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW

Read more »

Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

In Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.; APP Pharmaceuticals LLC; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as Defendants/Appellants/Teva) Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Appelle/Eli Lilly) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on January 12, 2017, Plaintiff had filed … Continue reading Teva held responsible for Induced Infringement of Eli Lilly’s Blockbuster drug ALITMA

Read more »

Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

In Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to be as “Roxane”) v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Camber”) decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 17, 2016, Roxane had appealed against decision of district court in an infringement suit against Camber and Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc (collectively … Continue reading Hetero’s Subsidiaries not infringing Roxane’s patent on PhosLo

Read more »

Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?

This issue was handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the SCRIPTPRO LLC, SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee decided on August 15, 2016. This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in No. 2:06-cv-02468-CM, Judge Carlos Murguia. United … Continue reading Does Focusing on Single Embodiment Limits the Patent Specification?

Read more »

Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art

Can the grant of patent be rejected on the obviousness criteria based only on common sense? This issue has been handled by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of ARENDI S.A.R.L., Appellant v. APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Appellees, decided on August 10, 2016. On December 2, … Continue reading Only Common Sense Not Sufficient to Prove Obviousness Over Prior Art

Read more »

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010