Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 NOVEMBER 2017

Little Life Left In Promega V. Life Technologies Dispute

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corporation, Nos. 2013‑1011, ‑1029, ‑1376 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2017), on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit reviewed ...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corporation, Nos. 2013 1011, 1029, 1376 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2017), on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit reviewed its prior holdings and considered whether they were consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, which issued in February 2017.

As an initial matter, the Federal Circuit determined that the Supreme Court's opinion did not affect its prior holdings relating to enablement, licensing, and active inducement. The Federal Circuit determined that two issues, however, required review. 

First, the court reexamined its reversal of the district court's grant of Life's motion for JMOL that Promega failed to prove infringement. The court affirmed the district court's JMOL decision because, in view of the Supreme Court's holding relating to non-infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), Promega's evidence of worldwide sales was insufficient evidence to support Promega's "narrow damages theory" of

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from