Patent ‘death squad’ rules draw US Supreme Court scrutiny
The U.S. Supreme Court will scrutinize a new system that helps technology companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. eliminate troublesome patent disputes without going to court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will scrutinize a new system that helps technology companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. eliminate troublesome patent disputes without going to court.
A company that sued seeking nearly $750 million in unpaid royalties for sales on medical devices using certain patents lost its appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals because the contract is unenforceable.
Could a fight over flavoring water mean the end of a court district that’s become notorious for its patent litigation? It might, if Heartland Consumer Products Holdings LLC is successful in getting a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against it last year by Kraft Heinz Co. in Delaware moved to a court in its home state of Indiana.
A wholly owned subsidiary of Zimmer Biomet in Warsaw, Indiana, will be arguing it should not have to pay about $248 million in a patent infringement case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A federal jury has found Apple Inc. infringed on a technology patent held by the foundation that protects the University of Wisconsin's intellectual property.
Under a mandate from Congress to help independent inventors, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office started opening patent hubs around the country. The Center for Intellectual Property Research at Indiana University Maurer School of Law will be the hub serving Indiana.
Indiana University Maurer School of Law is getting into the matchmaking business.The school’s Center for Intellectual Property Research has opened a patent hub which will connect inventors with IP attorneys willing to do pro bono work.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. have filed a lawsuit against Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. for alleged infringement of patents that cover the testosterone treatment Axiron.
The inventor of a popular Spider-Man web-shooting toy can't keep reeling in royalties after his patent ran out, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday.
As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues more and more patents each year, inevitably many companies will find themselves named as defendants in patent-infringement litigation.
Spider-Man's latest adventure is taking him through the strange and mysterious world of patent law.
A bill, authored by Bedford Republican Rep. Eric Koch, would prohibit a person from asserting a bad-faith claim of patent infringement and would enable the Indiana business accused of infringing to seek remedy in state court.
Three years after passing the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act which overhauled the U.S. patent system, Congress and state legislatures have been introducing bills that primarily seek to reform the process by clamping down on so-called patent trolls.
The Supreme Court of the United States has tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a closely watched case that clarifies standards for awarding patents.
Speaking recently to a group of students at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Lebanon inventor Larry Durkos and his son, Duane, told their story of battling the biggest giant in the bedding industry and winning.
A federal judge Wednesday dismissed a patent dispute case against Cook Medical Inc. of Bloomington, but a Texas corporation continues to press its claim that the device maker infringed its patents on blood vessel stents and grafts.
A naturally occurring DNA segment is not eligible for a patent simply because it has been isolated, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled June 13. DNA that is not a product of nature may be patent eligible, however.
A naturally occurring DNA segment is not eligible for a patent simply because it has been isolated, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Thursday. DNA that is not a product of nature may be patent eligible, however.
The Supreme Court of the United States decision upholding the patent owned by Monsanto Co. was surprising only in its unanimous affirmation.
A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that patent exhaustion doesn’t allow a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.