Top Rated

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




Standard of Review Changes for Freeze-Out Mergers

On May 29, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court, in its landmark decision of In re MFW Shareholders Litigation (MFW), held that the “deferential business judgment rule” is the correct standard of review for freeze-out mergers, as opposed to the more rigorous “entire fairness standard.” This decision requires that a freeze-out merger, from the inception of merger negotiations, be subject to both (1) negotiation and approval by a fully empowered special committee of




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




Post Grant Proceedings

Aside from litigation before the federal district courts, the validity of granted U.S. patents may be challenged before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Post grant proceedings are in fact a changing and vibrant area of patent law, as the America Invents Act (AIA)  has changed the landscape for such post grant challenges. Following AIA, the collection of post grant proceedings used to effect patent validity challenges comprises Ex Parte




Possessing a keen understanding of and knowledge in the science and technology sectors, IPLL provides clients counseling in all advanced areas of technology. Our patent law-related services are cutting-edge, and our understanding of technology matters is unsurpassed. Our patent expertise includes patent searching; drafting and filing; prosecution; infringement, validity and freedom-to-operate analyses and opinions; due diligence investigations and analytical reviews; Post Grant Proceedings; conducting complex IP audits; establishing in-house patent




Diversity

Enhancing Our Client Solutions At our firm we view diversity not as another corporate initiative, but as a vital component of how we conduct our business, and how our members live and work together. The diversity of our members, in race, culture, religion and belief systems fosters empathy and acceptance, creativity and innovation. We serve a global clientele before multinational tribunals and intellectual property offices.




The Lanham Act and Jim Brown

On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Lanham Act claims brought by Jim Brown, a former NFL star, against video game developer Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA). The court concluded that the Rogers balancing test was the appropriate standard to evaluate defendant EA’s use of Brown’s likeness in video games, and since the use of his likeness was artistically relevant to games, it is protected by the




ITC Pilot Program to Promote Early Adjudication of Dispositive Issues

On June 24, 2013, the International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it will launch a pilot program for early adjudication of potentially-dispositive issues in Section 337 investigations. This pilot program is part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to streamline the investigation procedures to reduce the cost of investigations and to expedite the process. Under the new pilot program, the Commission will first select those investigations that appear likely to present




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




Assignment of Intent-to-use Trademark Applications

The Trademark Act Section 10(a)(1) clearly states that an intent-to-use application cannot be assigned “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.” In the recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board case, Cent. Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Mfg. Co., No. 91188816 (TTAB August 16, 2013), All-Glass Aquarium Co., a