On February 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in Helferich Patent Licensing v. NY Times and JCPenney reversed a district court decision holding that the doctrine of patent exhaustion barred a patentee’s claim of patent infringement.

Imitation, they say, is the sincerest form of flattery. But in the trademark world, imitation is sincerely unwelcome.

On July 11, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) announced a new Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) as part of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit discussed the non-appealable decision-making authority of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).

Monosol filed a patent infringement suit against Teva in 2014 after Teva sought to market a generic version of Monosol's opiate addiction treatment drug, Suboxone.

In the recently decided case, Urban Group Exercise Consultants, Ltd. v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Urban Group claimed that Dick's Sporting Goods' sale of its "Jump Trainer" exercise trampoline infringed the former's unregistered trade dress in its "Urban Rebounder" exercise trampoline.

On June 23, the United Kingdom (UK) voted to exit the European Union (EU) – a decisive move whimsically known as "Brexit."

An accused defendant would contributorily infringe plaintiff’s patents for gabapentin despite defendant’s argument that off-label use of its generic product was evidence of noninfringing uses.

In vacating a District Court grant of summary judgment that a patent directed to a cryopreservation process was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were patent eligible and directed to a new and useful method of preserving hepatocyte cells. - See more at: http://www.brinksgilson.com/method-for-new-and-useful-laboratory-technique-involving-law-of-nature-is-patent-eligible#sthash.ZfnRWfhE.dpuf

The PTAB recently decided to institute Inter Partes review filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Micron Technology, Inc., and SK Hynix, Inc. despite IPR petition was filed after the statutory one year period expired.

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. to address whether the act of supplying from the United States a single commodity component of a multicomponent...

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. - See more at: http://www.brinksgilson.com/supreme-court-upsets-the-design-patent-damages-apple-cart-remands-to-federal-circuit#sthash.riO5gjMa.dpuf

The Federal Circuit granted Aqua Product Inc.'s en banc rehearing request on August 12, 2016.

On June 21, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., held that a patent application filed as a continuation of an earlier application on the issue date of the earlier application has been "filed before the patenting" of the earlier application, and therefore is entitled to the earlier application's filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) has issued a General Order for an alternative case management schedule that expedites disclosures in patent cases.

Groupon argued that the Ratsimor paper was publicly available for viewing and downloading on the Internet from a university website.

One question innovators frequently ask is "What is a patentable invention?" This is an important question because patents confer legal rights that enable the patent owner to prevent others from making, using, selling, and offering for sale patented inventions.

In early 2014, the Supreme Court limited a plaintiff’s ability to sue a defendant under general jurisdiction.

A rejection under 35 USC § 102(e) relying upon the disclosure of a provisional application, which anticipates the rejected claim, may not be as iron-clad as one might think, and a provisional application that one filed may not become effective as prior art.

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (Kirtsaeng II) gives a district court broad discretion when awarding attorney's fees under the statutory fee-shifting provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505.