Megan R. Mahoney

Jan 23, 2025 | mondaq.com | Megan R. Mahoney |Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss apatent infringement complaint involving gene editing technologythat sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of theHatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee'scomplaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimedtechnology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a"patented invention" that were "reasonablyrelated" to an FDA submission.

Jan 20, 2025 | jdsupra.com | Rachel Elsby |Matthew Hartman |Megan R. Mahoney

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

Jan 17, 2025 | akingump.com | Megan R. Mahoney |Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby

By: Megan R. Mahoney, Matthew George Hartman, Rachel J. ElsbyThe District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Dec 2, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Matthew Hartman |Megan R. Mahoney |Rubén Muñoz

A district court recently refused to exclude testimony regarding consumer surveys conducted by a design patent expert, holding instead that the consumer surveys may be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs at issue, and thus could assist the factfinder in determining design patent infringement under the ordinary observer test. The designs at issue involved the appearance of a smartwatch.

Nov 27, 2024 | akingump.com | Megan R. Mahoney |Matthew Hartman |Rubén Muñoz

By: Megan R. Mahoney, Matthew George Hartman, Rubén H. MuñozA district court recently refused to exclude testimony regarding consumer surveys conducted by a design patent expert, holding instead that the consumer surveys may be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs at issue, and thus could assist the factfinder in determining design patent infringement under the ordinary observer test. The designs at issue involved the appearance of a smartwatch.