The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that a settlement agreement between a patentee and a defendant manufacturer released additional defendants from liability because their products used components...more
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-enablement because the systems identified by patent challengers as non-enabled under § 112 were not covered by the claims. Because...more
6/8/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 112 ,
Statutory Requirements ,
Vacated
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently reversed a preliminary injunction enjoining a patentee from making allegations of patent infringement and threatening litigation against...more
Despite evidence that defendants monitored plaintiffs’ product development and attempted to match its dosing intervals, the District Court of Delaware found no willful infringement because that activity took place before the...more
The Federal Circuit held that two patents directed to methods of preparing samples for use in diagnostic methods are patent eligible under Section 101, reversing a decision from the District Court for the Northern District of...more
The Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s finding of inequitable conduct on the basis that appellants and its lawyers intentionally withheld material information involving the on-sale bar from the United States Patent &...more
A recent decision from the Federal Circuit highlights the critical role that particular words can play in a jury instruction, as well as the extreme care that litigants should take in scrutinizing and objecting to a trial...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating three patents on anticipation grounds, finding the district court improperly relied on disclosures from multiple...more
3/2/2020
/ Anticipation ,
Disclosure ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Treatment Method Patents
Chief Judge Stark granted a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings based on non-infringement, holding that plaintiff’s patent term extension (PTE) did not extend to the accused product because the PTE was...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a patent owner’s time-bar challenge to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, holding that the patent owner failed to provide sufficient details to establish proper service of a complaint for...more
Although a valid license can provide a complete defense to patent infringement, the tangled web created when the defense is predicated on a sublicensee’s rights following bankruptcy of the sublicensor may preclude resolution...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
9/9/2019
/ Appeals ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Disclaimers ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision barring Amgen from asserting an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents against Coherus Biosciences because Amgen disclaimed all combinations not identified...more
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 (the “’079 Patent”) on the grounds that the inter partes review (IPR) petition was time-barred as a result of a merger between the...more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California when it failed to consider joining the patent owner before dismissing a case in which the licensee possessed...more
6/25/2019
/ Article III ,
Dismissals ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
FRCP 19 ,
Joinder ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Remand ,
Standing ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
Transfer of Rights ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit recently upheld a district court’s decision to tax a patent infringement plaintiff with its opponent’s attorneys’ fees based on an inadequate presuit investigation into infringement, even though the patent...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
1/28/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Standing
The Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,921 (the “’921 Patent”) were not shown to be obvious, finding that the PTAB applied the...more
9/28/2018
/ Article III ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Reversal ,
Standing
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of standing an appeal filed by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner of a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held two...more
8/30/2018
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Dismissals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Prior Art ,
Standing
The Federal Circuit ruled that when a defendant is incorporated in a state that has multiple judicial districts, the defendant will reside in only one of the districts for venue purposes under the patent venue statute, 28...more
The District Court for the Central District of California recently found that plaintiff Akeso Health Sciences, LLC’s 10-year delay in filing its patent infringement claims justified granting defendant Designs for Health,...more
On April 28, 2017, the District Court for the District of Delaware denied AVM Technologies’ motion for summary judgment because Intel’s non infringement defense based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents requires the Court...more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to two related petitions brought by Amgen, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc. to resolve disputes regarding the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act...more
On September 8, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the Eastern District of Virginia in which the district court held that UCB, Inc.’s Cimzia® antibody does not infringe Yeda’s U.S. Patent No. 6,090,923 (“the...more
Upon remand by the Supreme Court following its decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), a panel of the Federal Circuit reconsidered its previous decision to vacate a jury’s...more