-
Jul 9, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Zijian Han
In SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, the Federal Circuit found that a district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment defendant based on the defendant’s sending an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement to the declaratory judgment plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff infringed the defendant’s patents by selling products through Amazon into the state.
-
Jul 8, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han |Bruce White |Andrew Bettwy |Jeffrey Horwitz
Skip to main content July 08, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 190 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
-
Jul 8, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han
In SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, the Federal Circuit found that a district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment defendant based on the defendant’s sending an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement to the declaratory judgment plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff infringed the defendant’s patents by selling products through Amazon into the state.
-
May 15, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Zijian Han
This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain
references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit
considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
"Board") was correct in declining to consider the patent
owner's certain evidence not submitted in compliance with the
Board's rules and in making a determination regarding written
description requirements.
-
May 13, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Zijian Han
This case is an appellate review of the district court's
findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date.
Background
Amgen produces and markets apremilast, a medication for the
treatment of certain types of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,
under the brand name Otezla. Amgen also owns three patents —
the '638, '101, and '541 patents — covering
Otezla. Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
seeking approval to market a generic version of apremilast.
-
Dec 15, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | Zijian Han
In ABS Global, Inc., Genus plc v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, the case addresses a claim construction issue regarding whether a claim term is plural-allowing. BackgroundABS Global Inc. and Genus plc (collectively, ABS) petitioned for an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,439 (the “’439 patent”) owned by Cytonome/ST, LLC. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that ABS did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable.
-
Dec 14, 2023 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han |Giovanni Campi |David J. Pryzbylski |John F. Kuenstler
’Tis the season for reviewing employee handbooks and ensuring your policies are up to date. This year, you may want to review your dress code policy and ensure it is compliant with the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act which protects employees from race-based hair discrimination. California was the first state to enact the CROWN Act in 2019, leading the charge in a movement that has swept the nation.
-
Dec 14, 2023 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han |Giovanni Campi |Nathaniel Arden |Michael Levine
On December 12, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it is producing an online resource relating to employment practices and data protection. The ICO also announced that it would be releasing draft guidance on the different topic areas to be included in the resource in stages, and adding to it over time. The ICO provided draft guidance on “Keeping employment records” and “Recruitment and selection” for consultation.
-
Dec 14, 2023 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han |Giovanni Campi |Nathaniel Arden
Skip to main content December 14, 2023 Volume XIII, Number 348 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
-
Dec 14, 2023 | 
natlawreview.com | Zijian Han
In ABS Global, Inc., Genus plc v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, the case addresses a claim construction issue regarding whether a claim term is plural-allowing. BackgroundABS Global Inc. and Genus plc (collectively, ABS) petitioned for an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,439 (the “’439 patent”) owned by Cytonome/ST, LLC. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that ABS did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable.
