In what may be the first decision on the merits in a patent infringement suit brought under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida has found that...more
In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., Judge Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware upheld the patent eligibility of personalized medicine method claims related to Vanda’s FANAPT®...more
In Apotex, Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that Apotex had failed to show that claims directed to a specific formulation of tigecycline...more
In Multilayer Stretch Cling Film v. Berry Plastics, the Federal Circuit provided a detailed discussion of the construction of claims that use Markush group language. The decision emphasizes the closed nature of the...more
To support the National Cancer Moonshot initiative, the USPTO has launched the Patents 4 Patients program, also known as the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program. Under this program, applicants can obtain expedited examination...more
3D printing offers great promise for innovation and manufacturing, but this tool has expanded the scope of patented products that can be easily and cheaply copied, and may make it harder to identify and prosecute infringers....more
8/1/2016
/ 3D Printing ,
Bilski ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Contributory Infringement ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Induced Infringement ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Manufacturers ,
Medical Devices ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Professional Conferences ,
USPTO
In an en banc decision issued in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that in order for a commercial transaction to trigger the on-sale bar of § 35 USC 102(b), it must “bear the general...more
7/22/2016
/ Amicus Briefs ,
CAFC ,
En Banc Review ,
Hospira ,
Manufacturers ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Orange Book ,
Outsourcing ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Remand ,
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
The USPTO has launched a new after final program available starting July 11, 2016. The Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) combines features of the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) and Pre-Appeal Brief...more
In Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Eli Lilly and Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to correct improper multiple dependent claims and instead held them invalid under 35...more
The Federal Circuit decided not to disturb the “longstanding administrative construction” of 35 USC § 120 that permits the filing of a continuation application on the same day its parent application grants as a patent. The...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 USC § 284, finding that both the substantive requirement for...more
6/15/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Seagate ,
Willful Infringement
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board has instituted Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings against a patent directed to a process for treating contaminated media. The petition for PGR challenged that patent on written...more
When I first wrote about the new natural products Subject Matter Eligibility Examples issued by the USPTO on May 4, 2016, I noted a puzzling difference between the treatment of a claim reciting a vaccine coated on a...more
The new USPTO patent eligibility examples include two examples for “natural products” based inventions which appear to be consistent with the examples provided in the December 2014 set of patent eligibility examples. Although...more
The patent eligibility examples published by the USPTO on May 5, 2016 include two new examples relating to diagnostic methods and two new examples relating to “nature-based” products. This article will consider the diagnostic...more
The USPTO has issued new patent eligibility examples, including several examples relating to diagnostic methods and “nature-based” products. Surprisingly, most of the claims are said to satisfy 35 USC § 101. The USPTO also...more
In Singhal v. Lee, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a complaint that challenged the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded to two patents, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon...more
According to this bulletin from Lee International IP & Law Group in South Korea, Korean patents filed on or after March 2012 may be entitled to Patent Term Adjustment if they issued more than 4 years after the filing date and...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
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
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