Donika Pentcheva’s research involving intellectual property assets was cited in exhibits in connection with a case that was pending in the United States District Court for The Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.
Donika Pentcheva’s legal research has been cited in an article published by the University of Minnesota’s Law Review. The article delves into patentable subject matter. The article concludes as follows: Mayo, Myriad, and Alice streamlined the patentable subject matter doctrine into a two-part test that proves difficult to apply to epigenetics-based inventions. The close relation […]
Donika Pentcheva represented the American Bar Association in an Amicus Brief filed with the United States Supreme Court in a case involving patent latches. The case is titled: “SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC.” The case held that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages brought […]
Donika Pentcheva’s legal research was cited in Brief of Amici Curiae All Market Inc., Case-Mate Inc., General Mills, Inc., Herman Miller, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Mark Anthony International Srl, Owens Corning Intellectual Capital, LLC, Princeton Vanguard, LLC and Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. in Support of Converse, Inc. in a case pending before the United States Court of […]
Donika Pentcheva’s research involving intellectual property law has been cited in the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, The University of Texas School of Law’s premier student-run law journal for cutting-edge, substantive legal issues in Intellectual Property, Patents and emerging technologies. The article is titled: “Rogue One: Section 285 Attorney’s Fees in Doctrinal Patent Ineligibility Cases.” […]
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the following two cases: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston […]