Patent Office Trials Blog
    • 11/16/2015
      Institute for Law and Technology (ILT) of The Center for American and International Law

      J. Warren Lytle, Jr. , Sughrue Mion, PLLC will be a featured speaker at the upcoming 53nd Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law on November 16 - 17, 2015 at The Center for American and International Law in Plano, Texas.

      Jay Lytle will be speaking on the topic of Software Prosecution: Dealing with the Hard Realities of a Software Practice, Developing disclosures and draft software cases to be prepared for the future, managing patent office prosecution for software cases already filed, and answering the challenges of functional claiming..

      The conference is co-chaired by Marc A. Hubbard of Hubbard Law, PLLC, Dallas, Texas and Steve Malin, Chen Malin LLP, Dallas, Texas.

      Conference highlights will include:

      • Annual patent, trademark and copyright law updates
      • Deep dive track on hot issues in patent litigation
      • Overcoming challenges in drafting and prosecuting patent applications on software inventions
      • A half day on conducting PTAB trials
      • Alice and the patent eligibility morass - How did we get here, how bad is it, and can we fix it?
      • Recent developments in patent portfolio licensing models
      • The new Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act and pitfalls to avoid when hiring technology employees
      • Introduction to the Texas Regional PTO Office

      MCLE Credit will be available. Please visit for full details and to register.

      About the Institute for Law and Technology (ILT)
      Established in 2003, ILT, part of The Center for American and International Law (CAIL), sponsors educational programs for lawyers and other professionals with a principal focus on intellectual law and practice. ILT is a membership organization and counts leading intellectual property practitioners, both in-house and in private practice, among its members.

    • 10/20/2015
      On October 20, 2015, 1-2:30 PM ET, Alton Hare is participating in the American Bar Association webinar, “Will My Patent Make Cents? How Courts and the USPTO Affect Patent Portfolio Value.” The program will use hypothetical tax situations to discuss the following topics:
      • The factors that affect the value of a patent
      • The American Invents Act and recent case law (CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.)
      • Best practices and practical tips to help assist your clients

      To learn more about and register for the program, please click here.
    • 10/5/2015
      Sughrue would like to congratulate its partner, Kevin Kunzendorf, for his recent appointment to the Chair position of one of AIPLA's most active and recognized committees. The IP Practice in the Far East committee serves as one of the top resources for individuals and companies with a professional interest in the IP laws of Asian countries. The Far East Committee seeks to establish and solidify relations with IP organizations and associations in those countries. Additionally, the committee is focused on studying and reporting on the IP laws and practices of those countries. As knowledgeable representatives of AIPLA, the Far East Committee also serves as a resource to foreign companies and practitioners and provides information on U.S. IP law and practices.
    • 9/11/2015

      The Partners of Sughrue Mion, PLLC are proud to once again sponsor the APABA-DC 2015 Annual Awards and Installation Gala.  The event will be held on Friday, September 25, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. to midnight at the National Museum for Women in the Arts.  The event will host DC's best APABA practitioners and will include an ceremony installing the new APABA-DC board.

      The Asian Pacific American Bar Association of the Greater Washington DC area is the oldest and largest association of the APA.  Founded in 1981, it boasts a membership of over 500 lawyers, law professors and law students.  Based on a sense of service, APABA actively seeks to serve the needs and interests of the Asian Pacific American community and hosts a number of events and community service activities during the course of year.

    More News
    • 11/5/2015
      I. Introduction
      On October 19, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases to review the standard for willful infringement. The two cases, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 14-1513, and Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., No. 14-1520, are consolidated for review.
    • 10/20/2015
      The program will use hypothetical tax situations to discuss the following topics:
      • The factors that affect the value of a patent
      • The American Invents Act and recent case law (CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.)
      • Best practices and practical tips to help assist your clients

      To learn more about and register for the program, click here.
    • 10/2/2015
      Federal Circuit No. 2015-1407, October 2, 2015

      In Spectrum v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling of obviousness of claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent 6,500,829 claiming a "substantially pure” pharmaceutical compound that was 92–95% pure and non-infringement of claims 5-9 of the ‘829 patent by Sandoz's ANDA product. 

      The Federal Circuit ruled that a substantially pure compound (92%-95% of (6S) leucovorin, also called levoleucovorin) would have been obvious when both the 50/50 mixture ((6R) and (6S) diastereoisomers) and the pure compound were known in the art.  Per the Court, the skilled artisan would have been motivated by the knowledge that the biological activity of leucovorin resides in the (6S) isomer to differentially purify that isomer from a mixture, and there is always in such cases a motivation to aim for obtaining a pure, resolved material. 

      The Federal Circuit also held that Sandoz would be entitled by FDA approval of its ANDA to sell “single-use vials with 175 mg or 250 mg of substantially pure levoleucovorin.”  Per the Court, this was "far less" than the “at least two doses of 2000 mg each” recited in claims 5-9 of the ‘829 patent, and thus Spectrum had not established literal infringement.  As for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the Court found that the "claim amendments and distinguishing statements on the prior art during prosecution" estopped Spectrum from asserting infringement under the doctrine.  Specifically, Applicants had distinguished the prior art based on the “more stringent quantity limitations” of their claims
    • 10/1/2015
    More Publications
    More Events