Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place: How Limelight Compounds The Challenges Facing Biotechnology Innovators After Mayo And Myriad, Christopher M. Holman
Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place: How Limelight Compounds The Challenges Facing Biotechnology Innovators After Mayo And Myriad, Christopher M. Holman
Faculty Works
The Supreme Court’s decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies limiting the ability of patentees to establish liability in cases of divided infringement effectively undermines the value of method claims. The combined impact of Limelight and the Court’s previous patent eligibility decisions in Mayo and Myriad will be particularly felt in the area of personalized medicine and diagnostics, but could also threaten a broad swath of other important innovations in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Some of the potentially dire consequences of Limelight for some patentees, particularly in the biotechnology and pharma sectors, are reviewed in this article. But there could be …
A Biotechnology-Centric Look At Fee Shifting In Patent Litigation Post-Octane Fitness, Christopher M. Holman
A Biotechnology-Centric Look At Fee Shifting In Patent Litigation Post-Octane Fitness, Christopher M. Holman
Faculty Works
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies decision (Akamai III), in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s stance on divided infringement claims, effectively undermined the value of method claims, particularly in the realm of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and other biotechnology related innovation, by limiting the ability of patentees to establish liability in cases where steps of the claimed method are performed by multiple parties. On remand, the en banc Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks (Akamai IV) sought to address the problem by expanding the definition of direct infringement under 271(a) to encompass more scenarios …
Eli Lilly V. Teva: Generic Companies Infringe Under Akamai Iv In Case Of Divided Infringement, Christopher M. Holman
Eli Lilly V. Teva: Generic Companies Infringe Under Akamai Iv In Case Of Divided Infringement, Christopher M. Holman
Faculty Works
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies decision (Akamai III), in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s stance on divided infringement claims, effectively undermined the value of method claims, particularly in the realm of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and other biotechnology related innovation, by limiting the ability of patentees to establish liability in cases where steps of the claimed method are performed by multiple parties. On remand, the en banc Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks (Akamai IV) sought to address the problem by expanding the definition of direct infringement under 271(a) to encompass more scenarios …