Patent holders bringing infringement suits sometimes unnecessarily assert that a competitor infringes an unreasonable number of patent claims.
The District of Minnesota is one of the busiest courts in the nation. The District also carries a greater than average load of patent cases. The Senior Status Judges in the District take a full case load, but do not handle patent cases.
When should a company facing charges of patent infringement be required to recall the accused products? A recent District of Minnesota decision noted the absence of controlling authority on that question, but ordered a recall nonetheless.
District of Minnesota Holds that Mayo, Myriad, and Alice Apply to Dog-Eat-Dog World of Canine Genetic Testing
On March 31 in Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc., d/b/a Paw Print Genetics v. Canine EIC Genetics, LLC, No. 14-CV-1598 (JRT/JJK), Judge John R. Tunheim addressed the question of whether veterinarians can obtain patents for identifying genetic markers of canine disease.
Many companies accused of infringement have turned to Inter Partes Review (IPR) as an alternate route for challenging the validity of patent claims. But what happens if an accused infringer moves to stay litigation in light of a pending IPR petition?
Magistrate Judge Bowbeer recently granted Plaintiff Polaris Industries Inc.’s motion for a protective order preventing testimony on a Rule 30(b)(6) topic relating to disputed prior art.
Many courts have done away with oral argument on motions. The District of Minnesota, however, continues to holds hearings on dispositive and non-dispositive motions.