Combination Dosing Regimen Not Obvious Despite Overlapping Prior-Art Ranges
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Summary: The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a dosing regimen with unequal loading doses were not obvious and that a presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges did not apply.
Cancellation of a Closely Related Claim During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC
Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million infringement verdict, holding that Colibri’s doctrine-of-equivalents arguments were barred by prosecution history estoppel because it cancelled a related claim during prosecution.
Not So Cozy: Prosecution History Disclaimer for Design Patents
TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application can limit the scope of the resulting design patent.
[View source.]
