Patent Post-It from AmeriKat: Allergan's patent extortion claim, Samsung's damages petition, Revlimid generic settlement & more!

The AmeriKat taking a break from all of her
patent news catch-up....
The AmeriKat has been catching up on the US patent news that she missed while her paws were stuck in wrapping paper and her head was musing on all the exciting things that 2016 would hold for her and the IPKat.  So to catch readers up, she has prepared little post-it sized summaries of some of the biggest patent news from over the holiday:
  • Allergan's patent extortion claims rejected by US Judge:  US District Judge John Kronstandt in Santa Ana, California, ruled on 28 December 2015 that Allergan may refile its extortion case against venture fund, Ferrum Ferro Capital in California state court.  Allergan alleges that Ferrum Ferro's inter partes review  (IPR) to invalidate Allergan's patent for glaucoma drug Combigan amounted to extortion in that the IPR petition was "objectively baseless" and designed to pressure Allergan into paying a settlement.  Allergan had sought to keep the matter for federal court on the basis that Ferrum Ferro's "abusive" conduct needed to be regulated by the federal court moving forward.  Allergan's brief stated:  "The attacks are solely an exploitative scheme of a few profit-driven individuals that have fabricated a new way to extort 'settlement' payments form legitimate patent holders.  There is no evidence that any of these for-profit IPRs benefit society or are in line with the goals of the [America Invents Act]."  In September, the USPTO declined to institute the IPR as Ferrum Ferro had not established with a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with its argument that Allergan's patent was obvious.  For more information, see these articles in BloombergBusiness and PatentDocs,  To read the original complaint click here.  
  • Apple and Ericsson settle patent dispute:  Before Christmas, Ericsson and Apple reached a global license agreement settling patent disputes in the US, US ITC, UK, Germany and the Netherlands relating to the long-term evolution standard.  Under the agreement, Ericsson will be paid an undisclosed amount, together with ongoing royalties over the next seven years.  For more information please see these articles in the Wall Street Journal , Reuters and Ars Technica.  
  • Celgene settlement paves way for generic Revlimid:  As part of a patent litigation settlement, Celgene confirmed that it would licence Natco Pharma and its US partner Arrow International (part of Allergan) its patents protecting its blockbuster multiple myeloma drug, Revlimid.  The licence will come into effect on 31 January 2026, a year before the expiry of some of the Revlimid patents in the US. Revlimid represented 65% of Celgene's product sales in 2014.  Mylan is also reportedly trying to launch a Revlimid generic product.  Readers may recall that this past October, Kyle Bass also managed to institute a IPR in respect of one of the Revlimid patents.  For more information see Celgene's press release here.  
  • Nvidia loses US ITC case as part of on-going Samsung battle:  On 22 December 2015, ITC judge David Shaw held that Nvidia's Shield tablet infringed three of Samsung's patents relating to the circuit designs for chips which make them smaller, faster and more efficient.  This is one of two ITC disputes between the parties, the first having been commenced by Nvidia against Samsung and Qualcomm.  That case was subject to a decision on 14 December 2015 holding that none of Nvidia's rights were infringed - a decision Nvidia plans to appeal.  Santa Clara based Nvidia generates the majority of its revenue from the sale of its graphics chips.  However, it has reportedly struggled to get its chips used in smart phones and tablets.  For more information, see these articles in Bloomberg and Nvidia's own blog post on the cases here
  • Samsung files Supreme court petition in Apple design patent damages case:  Over the summer the AmeriKat wrote about Samsung's likely petition to the Supreme Court in its important damages case with Apple. Samsung finally took the step by lodging its petition with the US Supreme Court.  The second question in its petition states: “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?" That is to say, should damages be calculated on the basis of the component or the entire product (which incorporates that component)? This is an important question that the AmeriKat hopes the Supreme Court will tackle.  See these articles in CNET , the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal.    
  • Cisco wins long-running wifi patent case:  Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that San-Jose based Cisco was not liable for directly infringing or inducing others to infringe Commil's patent protecting the method by which wireless signals are spread over large area. This reverses a previous $64 million judgment against Cisco.  "The patent never had anything to do with our products and the millions of dollars spent defending this unmeritorious suit are a travesty, " commented Cisco's General Counsel Mark Chandler.  Following the decision, Cisco's stock gained 0.44% according to The Street.  For more information see these articles in Reuters.
Patent Post-It from AmeriKat: Allergan's patent extortion claim, Samsung's damages petition, Revlimid generic settlement & more! Patent Post-It from AmeriKat: Allergan's patent extortion claim, Samsung's damages petition, Revlimid generic settlement & more! Reviewed by Annsley Merelle Ward on Monday, January 04, 2016 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.