"This brings us to Japan, where patent law has its own unique peculiarities—and where this particular battle just reached a crucial milestone. . . ."

A Japanese manufacturer of reduced coenzyme Q10 won a patent infringement case against two American competitors, only to watch its victory unravel when the defendants reformulated their products. Racing to a second trial with predictive chemical testing rather than waiting for complete shelf-life data, the patent owner learned a costly lesson about the intersection of litigation strategy and laboratory timelines.

It thus appears that Goldstein has the upper hand in winning the pre-trial dismissal of the Section 7203 failure-to-pay misdemeanor charges. However, this may be a case for being "careful what you wish for."

A Federal Circuit case examines whether a generic drug manufacturer's process infringes a product-by-process patent claiming highly pure tolvaptan made through a specific reduction reaction. The dispute centers on proving infringement during an intermediate stage of chemical synthesis, raising questions about claim interpretation, expert testimony reliability, and the evidentiary challenges of demonstrating what occurs inside a sealed reaction chamber.

In a high-stakes patent dispute over Pfizer's blockbuster COVID drug Paxlovid, Enanta Pharmaceuticals discovered that a single carbon atom—allegedly a typographical error in their provisional patent application—stood between them and billions in potential damages. The case explores whether courts will rescue a patentee from its own written words when the difference between "C₁" and "C₂" means the difference between patent rights and public domain, raising fundamental questions about

"The math is stark: infringement victory + validity win + $10 million jury award = $1, if you cannot apportion value to the patented invention. . . ."

Can a patentee unknowingly create a patent license—and trigger marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287—simply by dismissing an infringement suit with prejudice? That was the ruling by the district court...

For a moment, place yourself in the position of Spin Master, Ltd., a Canadian toy company that spent over a decade developing, patenting, and marketing its Zero Gravity...

In mid-June 2025, attorneys for plaintiffs Janssen Products and PharmaMar were reviewing their opponent's document production in a routine Hatch-Waxman patent...

"The rules say little about the scope of investigation but instead focus their efforts on defining ‘improper contact'—creating a system where anything goes so long as jurors never find out."

On its face, EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC reads like a cautionary tale ripped from the patent litigation playbook.

In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2022-1884, 2022-1886 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2024) ("Decision"), the United States Court of Appeals...

「でも、これは単なる投与スケジュールの話じゃない。実は、裁判所が特許無効を主張する側に「自明性ショートカットボタン」を与える

Three years ago, a brash young data analyst from DOGE burst into your office and turned your 50-partner, 170-lawyer firm upside down. Armed with nothing but spreadsheets, a whiteboard marker...

. . . The new legal tech tools raise the level of both competition and sophistication in the legal services market, which not only justify higher fees but also demand more intense and in-depth...