• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
58,339 results

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Petitioner v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al.

Docket 20-891, Supreme Court of the United States (Jan. 5, 2021)
Petitioner American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.
Respondent Neapco Holdings LLC, et al.
Other Ameranth, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Minerva Surgical, Inc., Petitioner v. Hologic, Inc., et al.

Docket 20-440, Supreme Court of the United States (Oct. 6, 2020)
Petitioner Minerva Surgical, Inc.
Respondent Hologic, Inc., et al.
Other Intellectual Property Owners Association
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Transgene v. Replimune Limited

Docket PGR2022-00014, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 15, 2021)
Christopher Paulraj, Jamie Wisz, Robert Pollock, Ryan Flax, presiding
Case TypePost Grant Review
Patent10947513
Patent Owner Replimune Limited
Petitioner Transgene
Petitioner Bioinvent International
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Docket 19-1368, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (Jan. 7, 2019)
Appellant SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Appellee MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

PERIRX, INC. v. THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al

Docket 2:20-cv-02212, Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (May 8, 2020)
DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA D. WOLSON, presiding, MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY (Settlement)
Contract - Other
DivisionPhiladelphia
FlagsCLOSED, SPECIAL
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Type190 Contract - Other
Tags190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other, 190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other
Plaintiff PERIRX, INC.
Defendant THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant EZLIFE BIO INC.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Apple Inc.

Docket 15-777, Supreme Court of the United States (Dec. 16, 2015)
Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
Respondent Apple Inc.
Other 113 Distinguished Industrial Design Professionals and Educators
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

29-2021

Document Minerva Surgical, Inc., Petitioner v. Hologic, Inc., et al., 20-440, 29-2021 (U.S. Jun. 29, 2021)
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
Not too long ago, in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446 (2015), another case involving a judicially created rule of patent law, the Court applied a “superpowered form of stare decisis.” Id., MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. ALITO, J., dissenting at 458.
—————— 5 Under similar circumstances in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446 (2015), every Member of this Court assessed a judge- made patent-law doctrine through the lens of stare decisis, see id., at 455–465; id., at 470–472 (ALITO, J., dissenting), even though “Congress ha[d] repeatedly amended ... the specific provision ... on which [our earlier decision nominally] rested,” id., at 456 (majority opinion).
In Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U. S. 653 (1969), for exam- ple, we disavowed the closely related doctrine of licensee es- toppel, noting along the way that the exception articulated MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. BARRETT, J., dissenting in Scott Paper had “undermined the very basis of the ‘gen- eral rule’ ” of assignor estoppel.
The Court describes assignor estoppel much more narrowly: “The doctrine applies only Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) BARRETT, J., dissenting when an inventor says one thing (explicitly or implicitly) in assigning a patent and the opposite in litigating against the patent’s owner.” Ante, at 5.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED Kagan

Document Minerva Surgical, Inc., Petitioner v. Hologic, Inc., et al., 20-440, Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED Kagan (U.S. Jun. 29, 2021)
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
Not too long ago, in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446 (2015), another case involving a judicially created rule of patent law, the Court applied a “superpowered form of stare decisis.” Id., MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. ALITO, J., dissenting at 458.
—————— 5 Under similar circumstances in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446 (2015), every Member of this Court assessed a judge- made patent-law doctrine through the lens of stare decisis, see id., at 455–465; id., at 470–472 (ALITO, J., dissenting), even though “Congress ha[d] repeatedly amended ... the specific provision ... on which [our earlier decision nominally] rested,” id., at 456 (majority opinion).
In Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U. S. 653 (1969), for exam- ple, we disavowed the closely related doctrine of licensee es- toppel, noting along the way that the exception articulated MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC. BARRETT, J., dissenting in Scott Paper had “undermined the very basis of the ‘gen- eral rule’ ” of assignor estoppel.
The Court describes assignor estoppel much more narrowly: “The doctrine applies only Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) BARRETT, J., dissenting when an inventor says one thing (explicitly or implicitly) in assigning a patent and the opposite in litigating against the patent’s owner.” Ante, at 5.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>