Why Fed Circ's 'Cellect' decision cannot be ignored
28-09-2023
Steve Heap / Shutterstock.com
In part 2 of articles assessing the impact of 'Cellect v Samsung', Vincent Shier of Haynes Boone now sets out what the future may hold—both for this unusual case, as well as judicial doctrine in general.
Following the Federal Circuit decision on In re Cellect—a dispute centred on Cellect’s allegations against Samsung Electronics for patent infringement—I wrote about why this outcome cannot be ignored.
In that article, I explained the basis for the decision and its practical impact, and posed a number of steps that patent owners and third parties should take with In re Cellect in mind.
Now, I’d like to explore what future twists may lie ahead.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
Cooley
European Patent Office
Finnegan LLP
GH Research
Gowling WLG
George Washington Law School
HGF Limited
IQVIA
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
Mintz Levin
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
Taylor Wessing
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Valea AB
World Intellectual Property Office
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into for FREE, please contact Atif at achoudhury@newtonmedia.co.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
Cellect, Samsung Electronics, Federal Circuit, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, USPTO, US Supreme Court, patent term adjustment, obviousness
