The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common...more
7/8/2020
/ Accord and Satisfaction ,
All Substantive Rights Test ,
Appeals ,
BPCIA ,
Common Ownership ,
Contract Terms ,
IP License ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Standard of Review ,
Transfer of Rights ,
Written Descriptions
In Amneal Pharmacueticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit professed to address a question it had not considered before: whether attorney's fees and a exceptional case determination was available for fees and costs...more
6/9/2020
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Counterclaims ,
Exceptional Case ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry
On April 22, 2020, the Federal Circuit "grappled," as the opinion put it, with the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., the Federal Circuit "grappled," as the opinion put it,...more
5/12/2020
/ Appeals ,
Apportionment ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Damages ,
IP License ,
Obviousness ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Unclean Hands
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more
5/11/2020
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Dismissals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pfizer ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing
Last week, the Federal Circuit had the occasion to address anew the requirements for standing to appeal an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding under Article III of the...more
In 1984, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) shepherded a grand legislative compromise through Congress that balanced the rights and solved inefficient regulatory consequences for both branded and generic...more
5/4/2020
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Dismissals ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Reaffirmation
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
There are (at least) two ways of looking at the course of the Federal Circuit's evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court's subject matter eligibility jurisprudence under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,...more
4/20/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Dismissals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Mobile Health Apps ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 101
The procedural niceties of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's implementation of the post-grant review features of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act continue to be explicated in the Federal Circuit (and of course, the...more
4/15/2020
/ Adidas ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Due Process ,
Motion to Amend ,
Nike ,
Notice and Comment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Cancellation ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal
In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more
4/13/2020
/ Anticipation ,
Appeals ,
Exploitation ,
IP License ,
Obviousness ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Public Use ,
Reversal ,
Section 102 ,
Summary Judgment
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) claim construction (and inter partes review (IPR) decision invalidating claims for obviousness) in it recent Genentech, Inc. v. Iancu decision, and also...more
4/2/2020
/ Adverse Judgments ,
Appeals ,
Claim Amendments ,
Claim Construction ,
Genentech ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Treatment Method Patents
The Federal Circuit continued its recent willingness to affirm findings of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (see, e.g., "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)"), in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v....more
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, patent applicants (and with the advent of inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, patentees) have found it difficult to overcome...more
3/30/2020
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Treatment Method Patents ,
Vacated
Mallinckrodt filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court last week, over the Federal Circuit panel decision (by Chief Judge Prost joined by Judge Dyk; Judge Newman dissented on the issue before the Court in this...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit has taken up issues relating to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) and a related doctrine, prosecution history estoppel (PHE), that limits the scope of equivalents that can be...more
3/21/2020
/ Appeals ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Eli Lilly ,
Hospira ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prosecution History Estoppel ,
Tangential Relationship Test
The latest Federal Circuit decision on subject matter eligibility in the life sciences came down (by a divided court) in favor of eligibility, in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. The claims at issue fell into the...more
3/20/2020
/ Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Life Sciences ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Myriad ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Product of Nature Doctrine ,
Reversal ,
Section 101
The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward:
Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing...more
2/26/2020
/ § 287 ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Damages ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Marking ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Vacated ,
Willful Infringement
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories was handed down in 2012, diagnostic method claims have been routinely invalidated by the district courts and those decisions...more
2/13/2020
/ Appeals ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Life Sciences ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Product of Nature Doctrine ,
Section 101
Expert witness testimony is a frequent (almost ubiquitous) feature of patent litigation, if only because questions of the state of the art or the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art are almost always at...more
2/10/2020
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Admissible Evidence ,
Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Expert Witness ,
Eyewitness Testimony ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Jury Trial ,
Motion For New Trial ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
State of the Art Defense ,
Summary Judgment ,
Unfair Prejudice ,
Witnesses
Last January 17th, the Opposition Division (OD) of the European Patent Office revoked in its entirety European Patent No. EP 2771468, which named as Proprietors The Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard College and had been...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197 to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton,...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the U.S....more
6/28/2019
/ Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Iancu v. Brunetti ,
Lanham Act ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
Scandalous/Immoral Marks ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Viewpoint Discrimination
"Pigs fly!" "Hell has frozen over!" Or less dramatically, "Supreme Court affirms Federal Circuit decision!" all would be apt subtitles for any article discussing the Supreme Court's decision today in Helsinn v. Teva. The...more
1/23/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
On Friday, June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. Justice Thomas (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito,...more
6/25/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Profits ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation