New Jersey radiologist Bruce Saffran and his lawyers at Dickstein Shapiro have already won nine-figure infringement awards against Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific over the patent. Is Abbott next in line?

The Federal Circuit affirmed a $22 million infringement award won by Spectralytics, but vacated the trial judge's denial of treble damages in light of the jury's finding that Johnson & Johnson's Cordis unit had willfully infringed a coronary stent patent.

Any court opinion that contains the words, "Crystalline 7-[2-(2-aminothiazol-4-yl)-2-hydroxyiminoacetamido]-3-vinyl-3-cephem.-4-carboxylic acid," doesn't exactly put us in our comfort zone. Yet, upon closer inspection, it appears that the Federal Circuit's en banc decision Monday in Lupin Ltd. v. Abbott Laboratories is an important and long-awaited clarification of patent law that deserves attention. After decades of debate within the IP bar and the Federal Circuit, a divided en banc panel on Monday established the standard for evaluating so-called patent-by-process claims.

When Daniel Garrod left his firm in 2008, he started up an East Texas patent enforcement company that just filed a huge infringement case against seven Internet giants. But at the same time, he's working closely on public interest litigation with Public Patent, which has an avowed position that software patents hinder innovation. Conflict? Nah, says PubPat's Daniel Ravicher.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling Thursday flows out of just one case in POM's litigation campaign against companies that market rival pomegranate drinks, but it's the first appellate decision to tackle the viability of the company's claims.