Patent holders bringing infringement suits sometimes unnecessarily assert that a competitor infringes an unreasonable number of patent claims. Courts have the authority and discretion to reasonably limit the number of asserted claims in order to combat potential abuse. When that reduction should occur is less certain.
Showing page 47 of 60
By J. Marc Ward
What goes on when crafting an acquisition agreement to purchase a company? Or to say it differently, why do lawyers insist on one phrase or word over another? “Legalese” has its place.
Brokered deposits can be an efficient, inexpensive source of needed liquidity to fund growth, but they do come with regulatory strings attached. Because regulators view brokered deposits as a potentially volatile liquidity source that may lead to overly aggressive growth if not used properly, restrictions are placed on their use.
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. Not surprisingly, the court held that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding unpatentable subject matter (Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs; Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.; and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l) apply equally to all forms of medicine, even if the patient is a dog. Because the patent claims simply identified a natural law, Judge Tunheim found them invalid.
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? In the District of Minnesota, that motion will likely be considered premature.
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.
A recent statement by President Barack Obama warned of future changes to the fiduciary duties for financial advisers. While requesting the Department of Labor to update its fiduciary rules, President Obama stated, “It’s a very simple principle: You want to give financial advice, you’ve got to put your client’s interests first.”