In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that...more
In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit...more
2/14/2025
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Claim Construction ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 112 ,
Written Descriptions
The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal...more
The Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for relying on an argument raised by the petitioner for the first time on remand. In so doing, the court held that the...more
In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert who did not possess the specific defined level of ordinary skill in the art could not testify about...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a district court’s construction of the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” The court’s constructions were not consistent with the claim language, and nothing in the specification or...more
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (’842 Patent) and ordered the PTAB to reconsider whether the patent should have been disqualified from covered...more
10/17/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 103 ,
Technology
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the final written decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) panel in six related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Board held in those proceedings that (1) a...more
On February 15, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated a patent interference between the Broad Institute and the University of California, finding the parties’ respective claims to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and...more