On July 9, 2008, Boston Scientific Corporation’s request for a new trial in a patent infringement lawsuit was denied and the $501 million verdict stands.

In February 2008, a jury…

Trimed, Incorporated successfully appealed a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement by the US District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded…

Dr. Bruce Saffran, a radiologist in Princeton, NJ, holds a patent for a heart stent part which enables the stent to deliver medication to the body. Saffran filed a patent infringement suit against…

After a slight stall last week, the U.S. House of Representatives on September 7, 2007 passed the Patent Reform Act, HR 1908, with a vote of 220 to 175. On September 10, 2007, the Bill passed to the U.S. Senate for review where it is expected to undergo further debate and editing and result in a different version.

U.S. Patent Office data reveals that North Carolina ranked 15th out of 20 states named in the nation in the number of patents issued to the State’s residence during fiscal year 2006, ending…

The US Patent and Trademark Office has revised the Rules of practice in patent examinations in what it states is an attempt to make examination of patent applications in the Patent Office more effective and efficient. The Rule changes require a patent application to give justification for filing a continuing application for a third or subsequent continuing application. The justification will need to demonstrate why the amendment, argument or evidence could not have been submitted in the previously filed applications.

Dr. Eckhard Alt asserted five patents in two different lawsuits against Medtronic, Inc. alleging patent infringement in certain Medtronic pacemakers and defibrillators. The first suit came in October 2004 when Dr. Alt alleged Medtronic was infringing on four of his patents. The second came in February 2006 when Dr. Alt accused the company of infringing on yet another.

A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $15 million in patent infringement damages to Interpore International after Interpore claimed the subsidiary infringed on a patent for a screw used in spinal implants. Johnson & Johnson also agreed to pay future royalties to Interpore to settle the alleged infringement.

In May 2006, Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc., won a $65.2 million verdict from Eli Lilly & Company after a jury decided Lilly infringed on a patent licensed to Ariad by Harvard, MIT and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. In addition to the $65 million in back royalties, Lilly will have to pay $17.8 million per year in royalties until the patent expires in 2019.