By John C. Donch, Volpe and Koenig, P.C. When Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. lost its infringement action against International Game Technology before the Northern District of California in 2010, there seemed to be no hope for Aristocrat’s indirect infringement allegations – the district court’s grant of summary judgment to International left Aristocrat’s indirect infringement […]
{ 0 comments }
As reviewed in Part 1 of this post, inventors should be aware of similarities and differences in what constitutes patentable biotech subject matter in the U.S. and Europe. This post discusses the nuances of patenting biotech inventions in Europe and identifies biotech products that are patentable. Part 2. Europe In Europe, patentability is governed by Article 52 […]
{ 0 comments }
The United States and Europe are the main jurisdictions where inventors in the field of biotechnology are seeking patent protection. They should be aware of similarities and differences in what constitutes patentable subject matter in the U.S. and Europe. In Part One of this post, we will explore patent protection for biotechnology in the United […]
{ 0 comments }
In December 2012, the European Parliament and Member States reached a long-awaited agreement approving a unitary European patent. The European Parliament approved two European Union (EU) regulations, one creating a European patent with unitary effect (or “unitary patent”) and the other creating a multinational Unified Patent Court (UPC). Before it can become effective, at least […]
{ 1 comment }
Recent developments in the case law have expanded induced infringement to include performance of the method claims steps by multiple actors. See Value Added to Medical Method and Diagnostic Patents through Induced Divided Infringement. The change comes from the Federal Circuit in Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks and may impact how claim drafters formulate method claims. It will […]
{ 0 comments }
