The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp., because the appellant was not a “third-party requester” dissatisfied with the final decision in an inter partes...more
In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding four OxyContin patents invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court rejected Purdue’s arguments that its discovery of...more
In Pfizer v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that upheld the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that stopped the clock running...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of two Inter Partes Review challenges brought by Amgen, Inc. against two Humira patents covering stable formulations of anti-human Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha...more
In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held the challenged claims obvious in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Although the...more
In In re Urbanski, the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of Urbanski’s patent application obvious. Urbanski had argued that the cited references taught...more
The USPTO is inviting stakeholders to suggest topics for patent quality case studies. As explained in the December 21, 2015 Federal Register Notice, “the USPTO performs case studies to investigate specific quality-related...more
The USPTO has released proposed patent fee changes that include significant increases to PTAB trial fees. The proposed changes are summarized in the USPTO’s “Executive Summary” prepared for the Patent Public Advisory...more
In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two parallel final written decisions in favor of the Patent Owner, because it could not discern whether the Board had incorrectly...more
In Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd., the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings in a patent granted from an AIA transition application based on its finding that at...more
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) has issued final patent eligibility guidance under the Australian High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Where the USPTO extrapolated from the U.S. Supreme Court...more
Judge Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has issued another decision interpreting the complicated provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Action (BPCIA), ruling that the...more
In In re: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, the Federal Circuit held that pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(1) does not embody a diligence requirement, such that interfering claims presented more than 5 years...more
As reported previously, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. I wrote about Judge ‘Dyk’s opinion concurring in the denial but offering alternative views on patent eligibility...more
As noted in a previous article, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.. The per curiam order was accompanied by two separate concurring opinions, one authored by Judge Lourie...more
The Federal Circuit has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., despite the filing of twelve amicus briefs in support of the petition, including briefs filed by Biotechnology...more
In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Prometheus’ claims were invalid as obvious, but in so doing it cited its own precedent regarding...more
In a single decision issued for companion cases Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit interpreted two important...more
Friday the 13th may have been The Medicines Company’s lucky day, since the Federal Circuit granted its petition for rehearing en banc in The Medicines Company v. Hospria, Inc. In the court’s original decision, which I...more
Tucked into the USPTO’s proposed patent fee changes is a proposal to change the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) framework. While applicants may welcome the simplified procedures for obtaining consideration of an IDS,...more
The USPTO has published proposed changes to patent fees that it says will “slightly” increase patent prosecution fees–even though several common fees will increase by 10% to 25%. The proposed changes to the Information...more
In Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that in order for a patent to qualify as prior art as of its provisional application filing date, the provisional application must support the...more
A shortlist of JD Supra writers covering the many complex issues of Patent Law and featured here for a number of reasons, including that they recently authored popular work in this realm....more
In its 2013 decision in In re Morsa, the Federal Circuit vacated an anticipation rejection where “both the Board and the examiner failed to engage in a proper enablement analysis” to establish the enabling quality of the...more
The Federal Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., which was the court’s first decision interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Perhaps the...more
10/20/2015
/ Amgen ,
Amicus Briefs ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
FDA Approval ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen