19 February 2014AmericasMatthew Nielsen

Burden of proof: US Supreme Court backs licensees

What would you say to (i) limiting your liability for patent infringement by obtaining a licence that establishes a royalty rate and prevents the owner from obtaining an injunction, and then (ii) asserting in court that the patent is invalid and not infringed so you might ultimately pay the patent owner nothing?

Already registered?

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk

More on this story

Americas

Amneal acquires biopharma ahead of $300bn patent wave

23 April 2026 The US pharma giant is spending up to $1 billion to build an end-to-end biosimilar platform and is counting on a decade of expiring biologic patents to make it pay off.

Americas

Health tech firm sues Nvidia-backed rival over ‘brazen’ theft

23 April 2026 Plaintiff alleges that a $6 billion rival probed its records system via a long-term customer, using confidential information to develop its product in the behavioural health tech space.

Americas

Squires refuses to resurrect HydraFacial patent review

22 April 2026 Decision underscores a growing deference to parallel rulings and tighter control over duplicate patent challenges.