On April 17th, CVC filed its Reply to Broad's Opposition (filed on April 9th) to CVC's Miscellaneous Motion No. 2 to Exclude Evidence filed (on April 2nd), in Interference No 106,155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute,...more
4/28/2020
/ Admissible Evidence ,
CRISPR ,
Cross Examination ,
Daubert Standards ,
DNA ,
Expert Witness ,
Hearsay ,
Interference Claims ,
Motion to Exclude ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petitioner Reply Briefs ,
Prior Art
On March 23rd, Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") filed its Reply to Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University...more
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 latest installment in the cat-and-mouse game of deciding priority in Interference No 106,155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively,...more
4/18/2020
/ CRISPR ,
Cross Examination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Hearsay ,
Hearsay Exceptions ,
Inadmissible Evidence ,
Interference Claims ,
Life Sciences ,
Motion to Exclude ,
Objections ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
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
Summary judgment, while clearly advantageous, requires that there be no disputed question of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a district court grants judgment...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
On January 9th, Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed a Motion in Opposition to Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard...more
2/11/2020
/ CRISPR ,
Evidence ,
Interference Claims ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Oppositions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Universities
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the circumstances wherein an inter partes review petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in Mayne Pharma Int'l v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., decided earlier this...more
There are provisions and interpretations of U.S. patent law that can be in tension depending on the circumstances under which they are argued, whether before an Examiner or during litigation. One of these is the dichotomy...more
Patent law is known for its several challenges in sufficiently capturing an invention, tangible in form and substance, in words with all their limitations. Patent law is known for being littered with traps for the unworthy. ...more
The varying appellate fortunes of patentees regarding the question of obviousness is illustrated nicely in the Federal Circuit decision in Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC handed down earlier this month. The statute, 35...more
The University of California/Berkeley filed its opening brief to the Federal Circuit last week, asking that Court to overturn the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that there was no interference-in-fact between...more
In an otherwise unremarkable albeit precedential decision, the Federal Circuit set forth an explication of when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has, and has not, given the court enough information to determine whether its...more
From the nadir of the Supreme Court's allegations that the Federal Circuit "fundamentally misunderstood" the law of inducing infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the nation's specialized...more
In a precedential decision the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating claims from Nuvasive's U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 in an inter partes review instituted on a petition by...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's claim construction and determination that claim terms were not indefinite in Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc....more
Before the Supreme Court's recent forays into the topic of subject matter eligibility in patent law, the most contentious line of cases (from the Federal Circuit) concerned the written description requirement of Section 112. ...more
The complexities that can be attendant on defending against an infringement allegation, and the possibility that a straightforward path to non-infringement can be complicated by claim construction even for terms construed...more
Many of the complaints from patent holders over the PTO's inter partes review process under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (codified in pertinent part at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319) stem from how the Office has implemented...more
8/29/2016
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
Appeals ,
Genzyme ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice Requirements ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Prior Art
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is a storied institution in molecular biology, being the site of annual meetings related to this view of life since Schrodinger proposed to use quantitative methods to examine biology in...more
Early last month, the Federal Circuit addressed an important question regarding the interplay between a decision to institute inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the ultimate determination by the...more
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. Depomed, reviewing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on three related inter partes reviews. While not quite a...more
Last week the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's finding of invalidity and non-infringement in ANDA litigation between Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz. In so doing, the Court deferred to the factual...more
10/15/2015
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Estoppel ,
FDA Approval ,
Generic Drugs ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Sandoz