The IPKat

FEBRUARY 23, 2023

In that regard, punitive damages for IPRs infringements have found their places in, but not limited to, China’s Civil Code (CCC), Copyright Law, Trade Mark Law and Patent Law (see former IPKat posts here and here ). In April 2021, Jin sued Baijia store for patent infringement. One month later, a settlement was reached.

Settlement 70

Settlement Patent Infringement Patent Intellectual Property 70

IP Watchdog

FEBRUARY 4, 2022

On appeal, the CAFC held that CNC’s version of the agreement more accurately reflected the understanding between the two parties regarding a settlement over Plasmacam’s claim that CNC infringed U.S. 7,071,441 (‘441 patent), for which Plasmacam has an exclusive license.

Settlement 113

Settlement Licensing Designs Design 113

IP Watchdog

JANUARY 3, 2024

holding that the language of the governing contract's forum selection clause expressly allowed for the filing of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in certain circumstances. entered into a settlement and license agreement in 2014, following years of patent litigation over their competing glucose monitoring system patents.

Settlement 57

Settlement Contracts Government Licensing 57

LexBlog IP

JANUARY 19, 2024

Samsung also filed IPR2023-01103 in June, challenging all claims of a patent assigned to Janssen that related to methods for treating ulcerative colitis with ustekinumab, the active ingredient in Janssen’s STELARA product. Biocon Biologics then filed its own IPR on the same patent in IPR2023-01444. That petition is pending.

Settlement 52

Settlement Litigation Patent Reporting 52

LexBlog IP

NOVEMBER 30, 2021

In response, Apple petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. patents 7,844,037 and 8,683,362. Second, Apple raised the risk of being sued for infringement after the expiration of the license agreement. Patent Nos. § 315(e).

Settlement 52

Settlement Licensing Litigation Art 52

Patently-O

JANUARY 3, 2024

The patentee had requested an order barring Abbott from pursuing its IPR challenges – based upon a forum selection clause that was part of a prior settlement between the parties. After the Covenant Period expired, DexCom sued Abbott for patent infringement. Judges Dyk and Hughes were also on the panel. DexCom at 9.

Patent 64

Patent Contracts Settlement Patent Infringement 64

The IPKat

SEPTEMBER 12, 2021

A primary motivation for Abbott's expedition application was to obtain a UK court decision on the validity of four European patents in order to influence a German court considering infringement of the German EP equivalents and to prevent the problems of the "injunction gap".

Litigation 98

Litigation Patent Marketing Marketing 98