Over the last several years the United States Supreme Court has become extremely active
in the area of patent law, deciding a number of cases that have significantly altered the
Already this term the Supreme Court has decided Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz and
Commil USA v. Cisco Systems. In Teva the Supreme Court ruled that factual
determinations that are a part of the claim construction process are to be reviewed under
the clearly erroneous standard, not a de novo standard that the Federal Circuit had
typically applied. In Commil the Supreme Court ruled that belief of invalidity is not a
defense to a claim of induced infringement. Argued on March 31, 2015, and still awaiting
decision as of this writing is Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, which will decide whether to
overrule the much criticized Supreme Court decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29
(1964), which held that a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the
expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.
Although important decisions, none of these decisions will likely alter the patent
landscape in the same way as Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), AMP v. Myriad (2013), Mayo v.
Prometheus (2012), KSR v. Teleflex (2007) or eBay v. MerchExchange (2006).
As the Supreme Court term comes to a close we will use this opportunity to discuss the
patent cases decided by the Court this term, as well as reflect on the impact the Supreme
Court has had on patent jurisprudence over the last decade.
Panel members will include:
Topics to be covered will include:
|Starting date:||Monday, June 29, 2015|
|Starting time:||12:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00)|
|Moderator:||Gene Quinn, IPWatchdog.com|