The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decisions finding one set of challenged claims patentable and another set of challenged claims in the same patent unpatentable. The...more
Inventorship issues can have serious implications in patent litigation, leading to invalidation or unenforceability of the patent at issue, as seen in several notable 2022 cases. In the coming year, patent owners should take...more
In a rare action by the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts granted Novartis’s emergency request for a stay of a mandate from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had found a Novartis...more
Addressing the issue of negative claim limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, vacated its prior decision (authored by now-retired Judge O’Malley) and reversed the...more
Addressing the issue of written description in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the patent adequately described the claimed daily dose and...more
Addressing obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) final written decision holding...more
Addressing the issue of written description in the context of antibody-related genus claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $1.2 billion jury verdict and found genus claims using functional...more
On January 25, 2021, US President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order, “Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers,” that implements the “Buy American” campaign to tighten existing “Made in...more
2/5/2021
/ Biden Administration ,
Buy America ,
Buy American Act ,
Buy American and Hire American ,
Executive Orders ,
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) ,
Federal Contractors ,
Made in the USA ,
Manufacturers ,
OMB ,
Suppliers
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) denial of summary judgment and held that a federal contractor may include certain restrictive markings on “unlimited...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied an accused infringer’s petition for rehearing en banc and issued a modified opinion with additional analysis maintaining its prior finding that patent claims directed to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite because the meaning of the term “half-liquid” was not reasonably clear from the...more
Addressing the issue of Article III standing and obviousness in an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner had standing to appeal because past...more
Addressing the issue of Article III standing in an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal because the party appealing failed to establish an...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment that found a patent was not obvious because the claimed pH range would not have been obvious-to-try despite overlapping ranges...more
Addressing the issue of patent eligibility under §101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court, explaining that the method of preparation claims at issue are not directed to a...more
Addressing an infringement determination under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the “tangential relation” exception to the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether the retroactive application of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents is an unconstitutional taking...more
9/4/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Just Compensation ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Question of Law ,
Retroactive Application ,
Takings Clause ,
USPTO
Addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees in connection with exceptional cases under 35 USC § 285, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a case was exceptional based on...more
Finding that the district court improperly restricted a defendant’s ability to present the jury with relevant evidence of invalidity after a prior remand, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded a district court’s rulings on validity, finding that the patent owner was collaterally estopped from asserting certain patents as...more
Addressing the issue of federal jurisdiction based on a lack of Art. III standing by plaintiff, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a claim for correction of inventorship...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded the district court’s findings of definiteness, grant of absolute intervening rights, denial of enhanced damages,...more
Addressing the threshold question of whether a patent is eligible for post-grant review (PGR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board or PTAB) denied institution of the PGR because the petitioner had not adequately...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment that the challenged claims were invalid for obviousness. The Court also vacated judgments in separate actions that had been entered based on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a rare grant of preliminary injunction based on one of three patents in suit, but reversed the injunction as to the other two patents based on the district court’s...more