DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

WASHINGTON, April 24(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's refusal to issue patents for inventions his artificial intelligence system created. According to Thaler, his DABUS system, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, created unique prototypes for a beverage holder and emergency light beacon entirely on its own. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a federal judge in Virginia rejected his patent applications for the inventions on the grounds that DABUS is not a person. Thaler has also applied for DABUS patents in other countries including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and Saudi Arabia with limited success. The UK's Supreme Court heard Thaler's appeal of his loss there in March.

The ruling blocks proposed Otezla generics until 2028. A spokesperson for Sandoz said Wednesday that the company was pleased with the decision allowing for Otezla generics in 2028 instead of 2034. Celgene sued several drugmakers over their proposed Otezla generics starting in 2018, and 17 of the 19 lawsuits have been settled since. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp said in 2021 that Switzerland-based Sandoz and India-based Zydus' generics would infringe three Amgen patents. The case is Amgen Inc v. Sandoz Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Nos.

April 18 (Reuters) - Alphabet's Google LLC (GOOGL.O) on Tuesday convinced a U.S. appeals court to cancel three anti-malware patents at the heart of a Texas jury's $20 million infringement verdict against the company. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that Alfonso Cioffi and Allen Rozman's patents were invalid because they contained inventions that were not included in an earlier version of the patent. But the Federal Circuit said Tuesday that all of the patents were invalid. The appeals court said the new patents outlined technology specific to web browsers that the first patent did not mention. The case is Cioffi v. Google LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.

REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File PhotoWASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp's (NOVN.S) bid to revive a key patent on its blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya that was invalidated amid a legal dispute with China's HEC Pharm Co Ltd (1558.HK). Novartis sued HEC and more than a dozen other generic drugmakers for patent infringement in Delaware federal court after they applied for FDA approval of Gilenya generics. Novartis settled with some of the drugmakers, allowing for some Gilenya generics before a key patent's 2027 expiration. The Supreme Court in October rejected a Novartis emergency bid to pause the decision. HEC responded that the Federal Circuit "followed its own rules," and that "no Federal Circuit judge - including the dissenter - suggested any procedural concern" with the decision.

April 14 (Reuters) - A federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C. is under investigation by her own court for allegedly failing to carry out her duties and refusing to respond to other judges' concerns, court officials at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on Friday. The Federal Circuit acknowledged the probe in a Friday statement. It said court officials "all recognize and admire the lifelong contributions of the justly esteemed Judge Newman," and "are committed to fulfilling their difficult obligations in this process." Federal judges serve lifetime appointments in the United States. The average age of federal appeals court judges was about 65 in 2017, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.

April 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court handed Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) a win on Tuesday, affirming a decision to cancel an Arbutus Biopharma Corp (ABUS.O) patent related to the companies' legal fight over Moderna's blockbuster COVID-19 vaccines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal's ruling that the patent for Arbutus' lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology was invalid based on an earlier Arbutus patent that disclosed the same invention. Moderna challenged the patent at the PTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2018, and the board invalidated it in 2019. Arbutus separately sued Pfizer and BioNTech for patent infringement last week over their COVID-19 shots, in a lawsuit that also does not include the canceled patent. The Federal Circuit case is Arbutus Biopharma Corp v. ModernaTX Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.

April 4 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) lost a bid to register part of a federal trademark for "Apple Music" on Tuesday after a U.S. appeals court ruled for a jazz musician who challenged the tech giant's application. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Apple's argument that it had priority over trumpeter Charlie Bertini's "Apple Jazz" trademark rights based on its ownership of an earlier trademark from the Beatles' music label Apple Corps Ltd. The court allowed Bertini to block Apple's bid for a federal Apple Music trademark covering live performances, one of several trademark uses Apple sought to secure. Apple launched its streaming service in 2015 and applied the same year for a federal "Apple Music" trademark covering several categories of music and entertainment services. It said Apple could not "tack" its trademark rights for live performances to the Apple Corps trademark for sound recordings, a different category of goods.

March 31 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) on Friday convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a $502 million verdict for patent licensing company VirnetX Inc (VHC.N) in a long-running fight over internet privacy technology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the verdict could not stand after the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board canceled the virtual private network (VPN) patents VirnetX accused Apple of infringing. The ruling follows the Federal Circuit's Thursday decision to affirm a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal's finding that the patents were invalid. Apple and VirnetX did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An East Texas jury awarded VirnetX $502 million in 2020 after finding Apple infringed the patents at issue in the Federal Circuit cases.

March 30 (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) convinced a U.S. appeals court on Thursday to uphold a patent tribunal's ruling that could imperil a $502 million verdict for patent licensing company VirnetX Inc in the companies' long-running fight over privacy-software technology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that invalidated the two patents VirnetX had accused Apple of infringing. An East Texas jury awarded VirnetX $502 million in 2020 after deciding that Apple infringed the virtual private network (VPN) patents at issue in Thursday's decision. Apple has separately appealed the verdict itself, but the Federal Circuit has yet to rule in that case. "If the court upholds the [USPTO's] decision, we have a big problem," VirnetX attorney Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken said at the September hearing.

Such "skinny labels" typically allow generic drugmakers to launch their products earlier while avoiding liability for infringing brand-name drugmakers' patents. GSK sued Teva for patent infringement in Delaware federal court in 2014 over its generic version of Coreg. In its petition to the Supreme Court last year, Teva said the ruling would cause "havoc" for skinny labels, which it said are "extraordinarily common" and "save patients and the federal government billions." GSK countered that the case does not threaten generic drugmakers that "operate properly under the law." The Biden Administration backed Teva on Wednesday, arguing generic drugmakers should be entitled to rely on the FDA's carve-out instructions, which are based on brand-name drugmakers' own statements to the agency.

March 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. International Trade Commission said on Tuesday it would ban imports of SharkNinja Operating LLC robot vacuums that infringe a patent owned by Roomba maker iRobot Corp (IRBT.O). The full commission upheld part of a trade judge's October decision that SharkNinja violated two of its rival's patents, affirming that SharkNinja's devices mimicked iRobot navigation technology. Bedford, Massachusetts-based iRobot filed the ITC complaint in 2021 along with a lawsuit against SharkNinja in Boston federal court. Another patent lawsuit iRobot brought against SharkNinja in 2019 has also been paused during related proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The ITC case is In the Matter of Certain Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission, No.

March 17 (Reuters) - A computer scientist who has waged a global campaign for patents covering inventions conceived by his artificial intelligence system asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to hear his case. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a Virginia federal court rejected patent applications for the inventions on the grounds that DABUS is not a person. Thaler has also applied for DABUS patents in other countries, including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and Saudi Arabia. The UK's Supreme Court heard his case there earlier this month. The case is Thaler v. Vidal, U.S. Supreme Court.

Apple, Google, Cisco, Intel Corp (INTC.O) and Edwards Lifesciences Corp (EW.N) sued the PTO in the California federal court in 2020 over the rule. They argued it undermined the role inter partes review plays in "protecting a strong patent system" and violated federal law. Companies including Tesla, Honda, Comcast and Dell filed briefs at the Federal Circuit in support of the plaintiffs. The California court dismissed the case in 2021, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on whether to review inter partes review petitions cannot be appealed. The case is Apple Inc v. Vidal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.

In a 2021 complaint filed with the ITC, Dish and its Sling TV unit accused Peloton and iFit of infringing four patents for video-streaming technology through imports of products that stream at-home fitness content. President Joe Biden's administration has 60 days to review the import ban before it takes effect, though presidents rarely reverse such actions. Cheney found that the Peloton, Lululemon and iFit streaming-capable products infringed patents related to Dish's Hopper set-top boxes. Dish said its patents covered adaptive bitrate streaming technology that lets users stream content from around the world in real time "at the highest possible quality". The technology was developed by Move Networks Inc and was acquired by Dish in 2012, according to court papers.

☆ Meet the top 8 lawyers helping startups patent artificial intelligence and comply with rules on privacy and safety
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Sindhu Sundar | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

AI startups must secure patents and manage concerns about bias, safety, and security risks. Artificial-intelligence startups are continuing to draw venture-capital support, pulling in some $72 billion in 2022, according to data from PitchBook. For one thing, AI poses questions around the kind of privacy and safety issues that can be subject to regulation and government oversight. Meanwhile, novel uses of AI technology have already brought unusual legal questions up to the courts. That kind of work also often leads to more work for regulatory, litigation and other attorneys with expertise in AI technology, who can advise on procurement contracts, risks involving software, and cybersecurity.

Feb 24 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ordered Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc (JAZZP.UL) on Friday to de-list a patent related to its blockbuster narcolepsy drug Xyrem from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's register of approved medications, in a win for rival drugmaker Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals Inc. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit removes an obstacle for Avadel to sell its own narcolepsy drug Lumryz. Avadel stock was up 4.2% Friday afternoon following the ruling, and Jazz stock was down 1.4%. Jazz sued Avadel for infringing the patent and others in Delaware federal court in 2021, in a lawsuit that is still ongoing. The case is Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No.

☆ Federal workers not entitled to COVID hazard pay -U.S. appeals court
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-14 | by ( Jonathan Stempel | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

Feb 14 (Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs. In a 10-2 decision with potentially "far-reaching" ramifications, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 188 current and former correctional employees at a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. But the appeals court said the government's Office of Personnel Management, the human resources agency for more than 2.1 million federal workers, had no regulations affording extra pay for exposure in most settings to contagious diseases. Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna dissented, saying the prison employees plausibly alleged they deserved extra pay for exposure to "unusually" hazardous conditions. The decision is Adams et al v U.S., U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, No.

Jacksonville, Florida-based ParkerVision sued Intel in Waco, Texas in 2020 for infringing several patents related to improved radio-frequency receivers. ParkerVision had said it pioneered the communications technology used in Intel's wireless chips in the mid-1990s. ParkerVision said Intel chips used in smartphones, including Apple's iPhone, infringe the patents. ParkerVision has also sued companies including Apple, Qualcomm and TCL for patent infringement over wireless chips and devices that use them. The ParkerVision case is ParkerVision Inc v. Intel Corp, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, No.

Companies Apple Inc FollowJan 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday affirmed a decision to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict against Apple Inc (AAPL.O) for allegedly infringing a patent related to digital rights management. PMC, a patent licensing company, first sued Apple for infringing several patents in 2015. He said PMC's patent was unenforceable because the company had used a "deliberate strategy of delay" in applying for the patent, representing a "conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system." The Federal Circuit affirmed Gilstrap in a 2-1 ruling, finding that PMC's "inequitable scheme to extend its patent rights" had prejudiced Apple. Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington Editing by David Bario and Matthew LewisOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[1/3] The sun sets on the U.S. Supreme Court building after a stormy day in Washington, U.S., November 11, 2022. Solicitor General's input on a lower court decision that prevented Apple and Broadcom from arguing the patents were invalid at trial. Apple and Broadcom also told the Federal Circuit that they should have been allowed to challenge the patents' validity at trial. The companies appealed that decision to the Supreme Court last September. The case is Apple Inc v. California Institute of Technology, U.S. Supreme Court, No.

Dec 22 (Reuters) - Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc, the U.S. International Trade Commission affirmed on Thursday. Apple said in a statement that it "firmly" disagreed with the ITC decision but was pleased that the import ban was paused. AliveCor told the ITC last year that Apple copied its technology starting in Series 4 Apple Watches and drove AliveCor out of the market by making its operating system incompatible with the KardiaBand. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board declared the AliveCor patents invalid at Apple's request in a related case on Dec. 6. AliveCor has separately sued Apple in California federal court for allegedly monopolizing the U.S. market for Apple Watch heart-rate monitoring apps, and has filed a related patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple in Texas federal court.

The justices turned away Reston, Virginia-based cybersecurity company Centripetal's appeal of a lower court's decision to negate the award after the judge who presided over the trial disclosed that his wife owned Cisco stock worth $4,688. Centripetal sued Cisco in federal court in Virginia in 2018, accusing it of infringing patents related to Centripetal's network-security technology. The judge awarded Centripetal $1.9 billion in damages plus royalties that Cisco said increased the total to more than $2.7 billion. Morgan told the companies before issuing his ruling that his wife owned 100 shares of Cisco stock, though he was unaware of it during the trial. Centripetal told the Supreme Court that Morgan had complied with the law, and that selling the shares just before ruling for Cisco would "solve one appearance-of-impropriety problem by creating another."

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away another challenge to a federal ban imposed under former President Donald Trump on devices called "bump stocks" that enable a semi-automatic weapon to fire like a machine gun. The Supreme Court in 2019 declined to block the ban from going into effect. The justices last month rejected appeals by a Utah gun lobbyist and firearms rights groups of lower court rulings upholding the ban as a reasonable interpretation of a federal law prohibiting machine gun possession. Bump stocks use a gun's recoil to bump its trigger, enabling a semiautomatic weapon to fire hundreds of rounds per minute to let it shoot like a machine gun. Two sets of plaintiffs filed lawsuits seeking compensation for having to destroy or surrender their bump stocks in the Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the U.S. government.

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by Bristol Myers Squibb Co's Juno Therapeutics Inc to reinstate a $1.2 billion award it won in its patent fight with Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD.O) subsidiary Kite Pharma Inc over a lymphoma drug. The justices turned away Juno's appeal of a lower court's ruling throwing out the award in the litigation over Kite's biologic drug Yescarta, in a case that could have repercussions for the cutting-edge biologic drug industry. Juno and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research sued Kite in 2017 in federal court in Los Angeles, accusing it of copying technology that the institute licenses to Juno. Juno and Sloan Kettering have told the Supreme Court that the Federal Circuit's decision to invalidate the patent and other rulings against biologic patents have been "devastating for innovation." On Nov. 4, the Supreme Court took up another patent case involving biologic drugs, agreeing to hear Amgen's bid to revive patents on its cholesterol drug Repatha.

The justices took up Amgen's appeal of the lower court ruling that threw out the Repatha patents. Amgen and other drugmakers have called the case a test of their ability to earn and defend patents for important drugs. Amgen first sued Regeneron and Sanofi in 2014 over their rival drug Praluent, which works by a similar mechanism as Repatha. Thousand Oaks, California-based Amgen sold more than $1.1 billion worth of Repatha worldwide last year. Regeneron sold $170 million worth of Praluent in the United States last year, and Sanofi sold over $200 million worth in the rest of the world.

Search resuls for: "Federal Circuit"

25 mentions found