Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Community Search
October Case Law Meeting: Supreme Court Patent Cases to Watch
Tell a Friend About This EventTell a Friend

When: Friday, October 25th, 2019
From 8AM to 10AM
Where: Foley Hoag
155 Seaport Blvd
Boston, Massachusetts 
United States
Contact: Case Law Committee

Online registration is closed.
« Go to Upcoming Event List  



 BPLA Case Law Committee October Meeting

Date: Friday, October 25

Time: 8:00-8:30 arrival
8:30-10:00 case discussion

Location: Foley Hoag
155 Seaport Blvd.
Boston, MA

Cost: None, but registration required. Please bring a photo ID to be admitted to the building.

Discussion Leaders: Scott Pierce, Partner, Foley Hoag
David Thibodeau, Partner, VLP Law Group

Subject: Supreme Court patent cases to watch

The October case law meeting will change up the usual format and a delve into a number of cases potentially or actually before the U.S. Supreme Court. After a very brief introduction of each case, and depending on audience preference, we’ll open up discussion to the group.

Attendees are encouraged to be familiar with at least two of the following:

HP Inc. v. Steven E. Berkheimer, No. 18-415 (opinion of the Solicitor General requested) Is patent eligibility a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims, or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of the art at the time of the patent?

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-817 (threshold of a natural phenomenon) (opinion of the Solicitor General requested) Do claims to a method of medically treating a patient automatically satisfy Section 101, even if they apply a natural law using only routine and conventional steps?

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, No. 19-430. (Petition filed). Is a method of a diagnosing a medical condition that employs a man-made molecule and a novel set of narrowly defined steps patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Peter v. NantKwest, No. 18-801(oral arguments heard). Does the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompass the personnel expenses of the United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Zimmer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 18-1549 (vacated and remanded). May damages be increased under Section 284 only if the patent owner can show both that (a) “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and (b) the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”

IBG LLC v. Trading Technologies Int’l., Inc., No. 19-120 (Cert denied). What is a “technological invention” eligible for a Covered Business Method review?

Contact for more information.

Committee Co Chairs

James Lampert, WilmerHale, Retired

Yvonne Lee, WilmerHale

N. Scott Pierce, Foley Hoag

David Thibodeau, VLP Law Group

more Latest News
Online Surveys

Boston Patent Law Association
One Batterymarch Park, Suite 101
Quincy, MA 02169
Phone: 617.507.5570

Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal