The Federal Circuit recently affirmed that a generic pharmaceutical company’s use of post-approval quality control testing was not “making” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). See Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva...more
On October 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding (1) that a substantially pure compound would have been obvious when a lesser pure compound (“the 50/50 mixture”) and the pure compound were known in...more
In December of last year, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s (“the Court”) decision finding U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 (“the ‘576 patent”) invalid as obvious. See...more
Whether or not a prior art reference constitutes “analogous art” for purposes of an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been the subject of debate in many instances. On July 28, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Circuit...more
8/6/2015
/ Analogous Art ,
Appeals ,
Inventions ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reversal ,
Young Lawyers
Following last year’s decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., 572 U.S. ____ (2014) (holding that a finding of induced infringement requires that all infringing acts be performed by a single...more
5/29/2015
/ Cisco ,
Cisco v CommilUSA ,
Good Faith ,
Honest Belief Defense ,
Induced Infringement ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Presumption of Validity ,
Scienter ,
SCOTUS