Infringement Suit Research Articles

The Need for a Patent-Centric Standard of Antitrust Review to Evaluate Reverse Payment Settlements

Reverse payment settlements have ignited a firestorm debate among all affected parties: consumer groups, brand-name pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, pharmaceutical wholesalers and retailers, lawmakers, executive agencies, and the federal courts. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has waged a decade-long battle against such private settlements of pharmaceutical patent litigation as illegal market-sharing agreements, with skirmishes among the circuits trending in favor of the settling parties until recently. The Third Circuit’s recent decision in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation unsettled this trend, and the Supreme Court granted the FTC’s petition for a writ of certiorari in a separate case on the issue on December 7, 2012.A reverse payment settlement is an agreement ending a pharmaceutical patent infringement suit under which a putative patent holder agrees to compensate an alleged infringer, typically a generic firm, to settle a patent infringement case. In exchange, the alleged infringer agrees not to challenge the patent holder’s patent or sell a generic version of the drug for a stated term. Because the payment flows from the plaintiff to the defendant, it has been called a “reverse” payment.This Note argues that any standard of antitrust review for reverse payment settlements must involve an evaluation of the patent’s strength at the time the patent holder and generic firm enter into a settlement. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the court of competent jurisdiction to review a district court’s evaluation of a patent’s strength. Part I reviews reverse payment settlements generally and the statutory schemes that promote their emergence. Part II presents three approaches the circuit courts have adopted to review reverse payment settlements: per se illegality, a rebuttable presumption of illegality, and the scope of the patent test. Part III argues that any standard of antitrust scrutiny must consider the patent’s strength at the time of the settlement — an approach no circuit has yet adopted — and that the Federal Circuit is the proper appellate court to review patent strength.

The Historical Origins of the Conflict between Copyright and the First Amendment

This Article addresses the argument that certain aspects of copyright law violate the First Amendment—an argument numerous copyright and constitutional law scholars advance—from a historical perspective. The Federal Courts have largely rejected versions of this argument, although in the wake of the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision there is some small indication that they are more willing to apply First Amendment doctrine to copyright cases. Most of the literature addressing the relationship between copyright law and the First Amendment approaches the question from either a doctrinal or an originalist perspective. Both perspectives face large problems. The doctrinal angle must contend with the large body of case law refusing to apply the First Amendment to copyright infringement suits, while the originalist perspective struggles with the lack of evidence of the intent of the ratifiers with respect to the relationship between the two clauses. In response to these two approaches, this Article argues that in order to understand the current tension between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause, it is necessary to go beyond the founding generation and investigate the way both copyright and the First Amendment were transformed by the generation that lived through the period surrounding the Civil War and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, because of the importance of historical struggles to the interpretation of the First Amendment, it is helpful to step outside the courtroom in order to understand the values that animate the Free Speech Clause. An understanding of this history clarifies the constitutional values embodied in the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment, and thus offers textual and historical grounding for the arguments that there is a tension between the two clauses that must be reconciled.

Injunctions and the Public Interest in Fair Use Cases After eBay

The indeterminacy of the fair use doctrine can frustrate those who wish to use copyrighted material to create something new. When coupled with the ready availability of injunctive relief for plaintiffs in infringement suits, this uncertainty can cause a chilling effect that prevents artists, scholars and others from asserting their fair use rights to the fullest. This article examines procedural changes regarding the award of injunctions that were mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. and extended to copyright cases by the Second and Ninth United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. It concludes that the procedural safeguards instituted in these cases will help shift the balance of power in fair use cases away from copyright plaintiffs to protect defendants with credible fair use claims and better serve the public interest.

Strategic Patent Management -- A Survey Among Inventors

The contribution of this paper is to prepare and provide empirical evidence for the findings by Henkel and Jell (2009) on behavioral patterns and the corresponding motives of inventors during the patenting process at the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO).Based on the conservative literature the patenting system has two main objectives – incentive to innovate and diffusion of knowledge (Kaufer 2002). Innovators need to be incentivized in order to innovate. Therefore, innovators should profit from inventing and innovating. Under this directive they should be able to receive a certain amount of value the invention is able to generate. Thus, the patent system is one mechanism to assure these rents referring to the objective “incentive to innovate”. In contrast, the patenting system could have negative impacts, since the invention is published with the patent (“diffusion of knowledge”) which might enable competitors to imitate or invent around the original invention (Horstmann, et al. 1985) (Johnson and Popp 2003) (Anton and Yao 2004). Nevertheless, the patent system might be a valuable candidate for inventors to appropriate rents for the following reason. The incentivizing objective is supposed to be achieved by granting the inventor an exclusion right which excludes potential competitors from using the invention. Such an exclusion right is often stated as precondition to incentivize an inventor to innovate (Arrow 1962). In reality, the importance of excludability achieved by a patent is uniformly found to be less effective compared to aspects like lead time advantages and complementary assets (Teece 1986). (Levin, et al. 1987) (Harabi 1995) (Cohen, et al. 2000) (Arundel 2001) (Kaufer 2002) (Sattler 2003).Nevertheless, the number of patents and patent applications increases and scientist try to explain why companies still patent en masse. They found and analyzed certain “strategic” aspects of patents and patent applications that expand the conventional objectives of a patent. (Kash and Kingston 2001) (Granstrand 2001) (Arundel and Pattel 2003) (Macdonald 2004) (Blind, et al. 2006) (Blind, et al. 2009).These strategic motives can be summarized as “Blocking competitors”, “Enabling cross-licensing” and “Forearming against infringement suits”. (Cohen, et al. 2000)

Competition for Innovation

Both antitrust and IP law are limited and imperfect instruments for regulating innovation. The problems include high information costs and lack of sufficient knowledge, special interest capture, and the jury trial system, to name a few. More fundamentally, antitrust law and intellectual property law have looked at markets in very different ways. Further, over the last three decades antitrust law has undergone a reformation process that has made it extremely self conscious about its goals. While the need for such reform is at least as apparent in patent and copyright law, very little true reform has actually occurred. Antitrust has something useful to contribute to innovation policy in three areas. The first concerns the relationship between innovation and market structure. Second is the lesson that IP law can learn from the severe revision in remedies doctrine that antitrust has developed in order to align private antitrust enforcement with antitrust law’s underlying goals. The third concerns the way that antitrust should deal with deficient intellectual property rules that grant far too many rights and defines them in excessively ambiguous or overly broad ways. Both competition and innovation are highly sensitive to market structure. A vast literature discusses the relationship between market structure and market competitiveness. A equally vast literature is concerned with the relationship between market structure and the rate of innovation. This literature suggests, for example, that patenting works much better in some markets than in others. The optimal length of a patent or copyright varies from one market to another, even though the actual length generally does not. By most measures the rate of innovation also varies with the number of firms in a market. There is probably more empirical literature on the relationship between innovation and market structure than in any field in industrial organization economics. One would never know it from looking at patent or copyright cases or even the IP statutes themselves. While structural issues play a major role in antitrust policy, intellectual property policy very largely proceeds on the assumption that market structure is irrelevant. Justice Breyer's decision for a unanimous Court in Prometheus may have opened the way for more consideration of market specific issues. In addressing a question of patentable subject matter he concluded that the practical effects of general patent rules could require a court to balance considerations [that] may differ from one field to another. For private plaintiffs, the analogy between antitrust and intellectual property enforcement is strong. While most antitrust lawsuits are brought by private plaintiffs, that is true of an even higher percentage of IP infringement suits. Private antitrust plaintiffs do not sue in order to promote competition but rather to protect their own interests, which may or may not coincide with competitive outcomes. By the same token, in intellectual property law the plaintiffs are rights holders protecting their own property interests. Managing competition for innovation is a complex task, made more complex and difficult by deficient intellectual property policies. Although courts are not perfect institutions either, there is a lesson to be learned here. We would probably have a better and more defensible intellectual property system if we left somewhat more to the courts and less to the statutes.

Mashups − A Protected Form of Appropriation Art or a Blatant Copyright Infringement?

Mashups − A Protected Form of Appropriation Art or a Blatant Copyright Infringement?

The Quantitative Analyze of the Latest Infringement Suit Based on Standardized Prosecution History (CLDrate)

The Quantitative Analyze of the Latest Infringement Suit Based on Standardized Prosecution History (CLDrate)

L'Oreal, eBay and tyranny of the unknown

When I realised that I would be writing an editorial in the week in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) was delivering its judgment in a vigorously contested trade mark infringement suit brought by the world’s largest cosmetics and beauty products company against the world’s largest internet auction and sales host, I at first assumed that I would be writing a commentary on the substantive law, explaining how it would affect that relative positions of trade mark owners, sellers of genuine and infringing goods bearing their trade marks, internet service providers and consumers. As it turns out, there is no real need to do so. The judgment reiterated both the existence of a privileged immunity from liability of internet service suppliers and the conditions which they must fulfil in order to enjoy that immunity; it confirmed the jurisprudence relating to trade mark infringement which it has articulated in a series of decisions stretching back to its Google France rulings in March 2010 (16 months is a long time in internet law; this ruling now seems to belong to the distant past); it also left a set of answers shorter and easier to understand than the raft of questions on which it was asked to give its preliminary ruling. The really interesting thing about this case is not the ruling but the circumstances in which businesses trade. Non-European readers of this journal may need a short explanation of the role of the ECJ in the field of intellectual property. European Union law on trade marks, copyright, database rights, designs and plant varieties is largely harmonized between the 27 formerly autonomous countries of the Union. To ensure consistency as between those countries in the application of harmonized IP rules, national courts may refer questions regarding ambiguities and uncertainties inherent in those rules to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Once that ruling is given, the national court which referred the questions now has its answers and can get on with judging the dispute before it. Additionally, in the case of pan-European rights such as the Community trade mark and registered Community designs, the ECJ serves as a top-tier court of appeal: this function is exercised in respect of both procedural and substantive law. As a system, the referral of questions for a response works well in theory. ECJ rulings are binding on all national courts, inferior Community courts and tribunals. They ensure that, as far as possible, the same rules are interpreted and therefore applied consistently across a vast, multilingual and multicultural single market. But does the theory work in practice? The reference of questions for preliminary rulings is not a novel notion, dating back to the ECJ’s foundation in 1952. In that year, postwar Europe was still striving to rebuild shattered local and national economies. The creation of a single market consisting of even the original six countries—only three of which were of any real size—was an almost unimaginably ambitious goal, a far cry from the global markets for goods and services we take for granted today. Never mind computers: most households didn’t even have a telephone or a refrigerator. It was a slow-moving world by modern standards. It was a world in which the interruption of litigation for around two years (the average time now taken for a preliminary ruling to be delivered) was, if not welcomed, certainly tolerated. Fast-forward to 2011 and globalisation—though still far from uniform—has become the accepted means of implementing business strategies, not least through the internet. When enterprises like L’Oreal and eBay trade, their daily turnover is vast (at the outbreak of their dispute, L’Oreal’s annual sales were a little short of US$ 20 billion; those of eBay were ‘only’ US$ 7.7 billion). What is more, this litigation was viewed by many as a test case since L’Oreal was by no means the only company that considered eBay was not taking adequate care to avoid infringing sales, and eBay is certainly not the only company hosting online sales, as the emergence and rapid growth of Alibaba has shown. When all the other questions are answered, one remains. Should the ECJ’s procedures be amended to provide a truly rapid response when legal issues arise, or is it better to let the parties adjust their commercial activities to lessen the risk of disaster in a market in which, two years down the line, they may be either the substantial winners or the losers in the wake of a ruling which they can seek to influence but cannot control? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2011, Vol. 6, No. 10 EDITORIAL 671

The Vonage Trilogy: A Case Study in Patent Bullyingg

This Article presents an in-depth case study of a series of infringement suits filed by “patent bullies.” Unlike the oft-discussed “patent trolls” — which typically sell no products or services and perform no R & D — patent bullies are large, established operating companies that threaten or institute costly patent infringement actions of dubious merit against smaller companies, usually in order to suppress competition or garner licensing fees. In an ideal world of high-quality patents and optimal patent licensing and litigation, infringement suits by aggressive incumbents would have a cleansing, almost Darwinian effect. Yet, defects and distortions in patent examination, licensing, and litigation — the very problems that are raised constantly in the context of patent trolls — generally apply with equal and, often, greater force to patent bullies. Nonetheless, patent bullies have scarcely been discussed in the academic literature or popular press, especially in recent years.More specifically, this Article examines three patent infringement suits filed by incumbent telecommunications carriers — Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T — against Vonage, then an early-stage company providing consumer telephone services over the Internet. Based on a detailed analysis of the patents-at-issue, prior art, court documents, and news accounts, it shows that the incumbents were able to exploit defects in the patent system in order to prevent disruptive technologies from competing with their outmoded products and services. Because startups like Vonage typically lack the resources to vigorously defend against even weak patent suits, patent bullying can result in severe anti-competitive effects. The incumbents in the Vonage suits achieved their intended result — drastically reducing Vonage’s stock price, severely weakening its position in the market, and placing it at the brink of insolvency. This case study demonstrates that further theoretical and empirical study is warranted to assess the full extent of the patent bullying problem.

Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Patents: One Experimental View of the Cathedral

ABSTRACT In their seminal 1972 article, Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed proposed an analytic framework for comparing entitlements protected by property rules and liability rules. Their article has become one of the cornerstones of modern legal scholarship, and the influence of the theory of legal rules they established has extended far beyond tort and property into almost every area of the law, including intellectual property. Despite the prodigious influence this theory of legal rules has had, its implications have never been explored experimentally. To remedy this knowledge gap, we conducted a series of controlled experiments on liability and property rules, using the patent system as an experimental model. Expressed in the nomenclature of Calabresi and Melamed, the United States' patent law has recently witnessed a shift away from property rules and towards liability rules. This Article presents an experimental study that attempts to test the hypothesis that amounts of innovation, productivity, and social utility vary across patent systems that tend to emphasize either property rules or liability rules. The results of our experiments suggest that the choice between property and liability rules does, indeed, matter, but in a surprising way. Despite the common assumption that property rules tend to outperform liability rules, we found the opposite: in a computational model of the patent system, liability rules outperformed property rules in generating innovation, productivity, and social utility. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. PROPERTY RULES, LIABILITY RULES, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY A. The Cathedral B. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Patents C. An Experimental View of the Cathedral II. METHODS A. Technological Methods 1. Summary of the Patent Game 2. Injunction and Damages 3. Game Setup 4. Enforcement 5. Post-Enforcement Play A. Human Experimental Trials III. RESULTS 1. Injunction/Damages Treatment 2. Injunction Treatment 3. Damages Treatment 4. No Remedy Treatment 5. Innovation 6. Productivity 7. Social Utility IV. ANALYSIS CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION In Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed proposed an analytic framework for comparing entitlements (1) protected by property rules and liability rules. (2) Their article is one of the cornerstones of modern legal scholarship, (3) and the influence of their theory of legal rules has extended far beyond tort and property into almost every area of the law, including intellectual property. (4) Although Calabresi and Melamed's theory has had a prodigious influence on legal scholarship, its implications have never been explored experimentally. To remedy this knowledge gap, we conducted a series of controlled experiments on liability and property rules, using the patent system as an experimental model. Expressed in the nomenclature of Calabresi and Melamed, U.S. patent law has recently shifted away from property rules and towards liability rules. (5) This Article presents an experimental study that attempts to test the hypothesis that amounts of innovation, productivity, and social utility vary across patent systems that emphasize either property rules or liability rules. The results of our experiments suggest that the choice between property and liability rules matters, but in a surprising way. Despite the common assumption that property rules tend to outperform liability rules, (6) we found the opposite: in our computational model of the patent system, liability rules outperformed property rules in generating innovation, productivity, and social utility. Until 2006, a patent owner that prevailed in an infringement suit was effectively entitled to a permanent injunction as a matter of right. …

Reach-Through Royalties as a Solution to the Post-Quanta Exhaustion Problem for Biotech Research Tools

Most biotech reach-through royalties involve only a license to use. The focus of this article is on a rarer breed: sales of patented products, the use of which is also subject to a license which is enforceable through an infringement suit. Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, such a situation may seem impossible. However, there is at least one accepted situation in which such a license is enforceable under patent law, and I argue that reachthrough royalties, while generally considered enforceable under contract law, should be another.

Is Fairey’s Use Fair?

The artist, Shepard Fairey, has caused quite a dust-up in the worlds of copyright law and newspaper photographers. Fairey, it seems, used a photograph of Barrack Obama, taken by Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia, as the basis for his Obama campaign HOPE and PROGRESS posters. The AP is said to have threatened a copyright infringement suit and Fairey, represented by a gaggle of Stamford University Law School pro bono lawyers, filed a preemptive action in New York seeking a ruling that his use of the Garcia photo was fair and not infringing. Not surprisingly, the AP countersued for copyright infringement.Fairey claims he used Garcia’s photo as a “visual reference”, and that he transformed the literal depiction contained in the Garcia photo into a “stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that creates a powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message that has no analogue in the [Garcia photo].” The AP asserts that Fairey’s work copied all of the distinctive elements of the photo in their entire detail – that the two works are essentially the same.

Federal Circuit joins list of appellate courts finding reverse payment patent settlements valid

In the latest decision in a series of antitrust cases challenging reverse payment settlements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concurred with the Second and Eleventh Circuits, holding that reverse payment settlements do not violate antitrust laws so long as the underlying patent was not procured through fraud, the related patent infringement suit was not a sham, and the anti-competitive effects of the settlement agreements are not outside the exclusionary zone of the patent.

Bad faith and false representation of infringement

The Ninth Circuit now requires that a plaintiff establish bad faith on the part of a patentee or its agents in order to bring Lanham Act or state law claims premised on allegedly false representations of patent infringement made in an earlier unsuccessful patent infringement suit.

Modeling patent legal value by Extension Neural Network

This study aimed at the basis of patent law and proposed a revolutionary valuation model for the monetary legal value of patents. The damage award of a patent infringement lawsuit was deemed to be the legal value of a patent. Sixty-five effective samples were extracted from 4289 patent related lawsuits retrieved in US district courts of Delaware, California and Texas. Seventeen quantitative patent indicators for describing dimensions of patents were summarized. The Extension Neural Network incorporated with the factor analysis was applied to construct the valuation model of patent indicators and damage awards. The proposed valuation model was validated to have the predictive power by error analysis and was accommodated to valuate the possible damage award or to negotiate the settlement fee in disputing patent infringement suits. It also contributed to patent transaction deal, patent licensing, hypothecation of intangible assets, and shareholding by patent-based technologies, etc.

A patent as a defence in infringement suits

For the first time, an Indian Court has held that the grant of a patent to the defendant cannot be a defence to an action for patent infringement.

Remix as 'Fair Use': Grateful Dead Posters' Re-Publication Held to Be a Transformative, Fair Use

On May 9, 2006, in Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the lower court, finding the of several Grateful Dead Poster images appearing in a band biography was a use under section 107 of the US copyright statute. In the case, the publisher Dorling Kindersley used without permission seven images of Grateful Dead concert posters or tickets in the book Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip (2003). Prior to the book's publication, the publisher had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate permissions with the copyright holder, Bill Graham Archives. Due to what the publisher perceived as an unreasonable licensing fee, permission agreements were never reached. Nonetheless, the publisher used the seven images in the book, incorporating them into remixed compositions, consisting of collages mixed with graphic art and textual explanations and commentary. After the book's publication, Bill Graham Archives brought suit for copyright infringement, and requested an injunction blocking further publication. After conducting a careful four factor fair analysis, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's determination in favor of fair use. While some of the pro-fair discussions within the opinion should likely be approached with caution, the opinion does hold some useful material for educators and writing teachers. Certain guidelines might be extracted from the opinion for by students creating new media compositions (as well as alphabetic ones), and for teachers in their pedagogies.

Class action copyright infringement suits limited to owners of registered copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the ruling of the district court, finding that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to certify a plaintiff class in a class action copyright infringement suit where the vast majority of class claims arose from the infringement of unregistered copyrights.

Introduction and overview of the symposium issue: innovations and intellectual property values

The eight papers included in this symposium issue are revised versions of presentations made at the AEA (‘‘Association d’Econometrie Appliquee’’) Conference on ‘‘Innovations and Intellectual Property Values’’ that took place in Paris on October 20–21, 2005. The eight papers have one thing in common. They all use micro data on intangibles or technology indicators, but of a very different kind (licensing-out contracts, royalty payments, innovation activities, patent renewal fees, patent citations, settlements in infringement suits, and R&D spillovers), showing the wide scope of the economics of innovation and intellectual property values and the richness of the data that are used in empirical studies in this area. Five papers deal directly with the evaluation or the effects of intellectual property rights. Two papers, by Sadao Nagaoka and by Ryuhei Wakasugi and Banri Ito, examine whether the strength of intellectual property rights ease technology transfer, in particular from developed to developing countries. Two papers, by Charlotta Gronqvist and by Emanuele Bacchiocchi and Fabio Montobbio, estimate the value of patents. The former estimates the value and the rate of decay in the revenues of patents using patent renewal data. The latter estimates the value of patents using patent citation data. One paper, by Katrin Cremers, examines one aspect of patent infringement suits, namely the determinants of the chances of reaching an early settlement before a final judgement is rendered by the patent courts. Four papers deal with technology transfer in a broad sense. Three papers estimate the extent and the channels of knowledge spillovers across firms (spatial proximity or technological proximity in Luigi Aldieri and Michele Cincera, mobility of inventors in Karin Hoisl, and patent citations in Emanuele Bacchiocchi and Fabio Montobbio). One paper, by Bettina Peters, evaluates the temporal dimension of knowledge transmission, namely the persistence of innovation within a firm. All papers have policy implications. The issue of strength of patent protection is of central importance to the ultimate success of the TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) agreements in the present free trade negotiations. As Charlotta Gronqvist mentions, her results have at least three implications for policy making. First, because of

Another Erythropoietin Win for Amgen; ImClone Settles Two Infringement Suits; Enzo Appeals Decision Favoring ABI in Litigation over Labeled Nucleotides; Markman Ruling Favors Oxford BioMedica, Sigma; Monsanto, Iowa State Settle on Low-Linolenic Acid Soybeans; Somerset Fails to Obtain Patent Term Extension; California Can Assert Sovereign Immunity; Syngenta Is Not Infringing Monsanto Patents, Some of Which Are Not Enabled; Judge Refuses

Biotechnology Law ReportVol. 26, No. 6 Patent LitigationAnother Erythropoietin Win for Amgen; ImClone Settles Two Infringement Suits; Enzo Appeals Decision Favoring ABI in Litigation over Labeled Nucleotides; Markman Ruling Favors Oxford BioMedica, Sigma; Monsanto, Iowa State Settle on Low-Linolenic Acid Soybeans; Somerset Fails to Obtain Patent Term Extension; California Can Assert Sovereign Immunity; Syngenta Is Not Infringing Monsanto Patents, Some of Which Are Not Enabled; Judge Refuses to Revise Markman Constructions in Digene-Third Wave LitigationPublished Online:29 Jan 2008https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2007.9888AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 26Issue 6Dec 2007 InformationMary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Another Erythropoietin Win for Amgen; ImClone Settles Two Infringement Suits; Enzo Appeals Decision Favoring ABI in Litigation over Labeled Nucleotides; Markman Ruling Favors Oxford BioMedica, Sigma; Monsanto, Iowa State Settle on Low-Linolenic Acid Soybeans; Somerset Fails to Obtain Patent Term Extension; California Can Assert Sovereign Immunity; Syngenta Is Not Infringing Monsanto Patents, Some of Which Are Not Enabled; Judge Refuses to Revise Markman Constructions in Digene-Third Wave Litigation.Biotechnology Law Report.Dec 2007.603-610.http://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2007.9888Published in Volume: 26 Issue 6: January 29, 2008PDF download