Popular

Copyright and Architecture

In 2004, the Fourth Circuit revived a two prong test for a copyright claim involving architecture between two home builders in Charles W. Ross Builder, Inc. v. Olsen Fine Home Building, 2012 WL 5447871 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2012). Rick and Jennifer Rubin, who wished to build new home, had visited the plaintiff Ross’s model home and received a copy of a brochure, including the “Bainbridge” model allegedly copied by




The White House on ITC Section 337

On June 4, 2013, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its Notice of Final Determination in the ’794 Investigation finding that Apple had violated Section 337 with respect to one of Samsung’s patents. Based on this determination, the Commission issued both a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order barring Apple from importing its iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G, iPad 3 and iPad 2 models for sale in




Claim Construction & Disclaimer –Federal Circuit Sides with the University of Minnesota

07/01/2013 In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp., No. 12-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial dismissal of a suit brought by the University of Minnesota (“the University”) alleging that AGA Medical Corp. (“AGA”) infringed the University’s medical devices patents. The University’s patents cover medical devices for repairing heart defects. Specifically, the two patents, derived from the same parent




Myriad and Patenting of the Human Gene

The June 2013 Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013) which considered whether portions of human genes may be patented, fueled an extraordinary amount of heated discussion for an intellectual property case. The patents at issue in Myriad concern mutated genes associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Health care advocates worried that a ruling in favor of patentability would make




ANDA Litigation and Reverse Payments

In Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 133 S. Ct. 787 (2012), the Supreme Court held that reverse payments in pharmaceuticals patent settlement are not categorically immune from the antitrust laws even if such payments fall within the scope of the patent. Often, reverse payments are made by a pioneer drug manufacturer to a generic drug manufacturer in settlement of a patent challenge. In exchange for the payment, the generic