Archives: Patent

Supreme Court Unshrouds the ‘On Sale’ Bar as Applied to Secret Sales

By Erin Caldwell on January 25, 2019 Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent

This week, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a secret sale qualifies as prior art. At issue was whether the America Invents Act (AIA) changed the “on sale” bar to patentability to exempt secret sales as prior art.[1] The case, Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, arose out of agreements entered into by … Continue Reading

PTAB Denies Institution Despite Petitioner Demonstrating Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing With Respect to at Least One Claim

By David Farsiou on November 12, 2018 Posted in Patent

In SAS Institute v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1351 (2018), the Supreme Court held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all the claims the petitioner challenged. The Court found that 35 U.S.C. §314(a)’s requirement that the Board find “a … Continue Reading

Additional Discovery of Clinical Trial Data in Inter Partes Review

By Timothy Doyle and David Farsiou on March 30, 2018 Posted in Patent

In Apotex, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG (IPR 2017-00854, paper 47 dated Feb. 5, 2018), petitioner Apotex sought, and was granted, discovery of a Phase III clinical trial protocol from patent owner Novartis. The patent at issue in the IPR, U.S. 9,187,405, claims a method for treating relapses in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis by orally … Continue Reading

Core Wireless: Moving Beyond Eligibility as the Exception to the Exception?

By Brendan Clark on February 8, 2018 Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent

January was an exciting month for patent professionals still attempting to make sense of the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision. Hot on the heels of its Jan. 10 decision in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Core … Continue Reading

Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems: Attaching Security Profile to a Downloadable Is Patent Eligible

By Michael Stein on January 16, 2018 Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent

In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter (affirming the District Court determination that certain claims were patent eligible) and reasonable royalty damages (vacating part of a jury verdict for failure to adequately apportion the royalty base). This article … Continue Reading

Patent Portfolio Management – a Team Approach to Patent Drafting

By Shannon McCue on January 8, 2018 Posted in Patent

On my drive to work, there was a trash bag on the freeway, then a box, and later a couple of bags flying around. I wondered where this garbage came from. There were a number of likely candidates: a small pickup truck loaded with miscellaneous junk, a dump truck and a large truck with a … Continue Reading

Strategic Use of a Reissue Application in the Context of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

By David Farsiou on January 2, 2018 Posted in Patent

In Legend3D, Inc. (Petitioner) v. Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. (Patent Owner), Case IPR2016-00806, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) lifted a stay of a pending reissue application following a Final Written Decision, thereby allowing the Patent Owner another opportunity to pursue amended claims. Although the Federal Circuit recently determined that the PTAB … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Joint Infringement Standard

By Andrew Abokhair on December 27, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, Appeal No. 16-2386 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2017),[1] the Federal Circuit clarified the scope of joint infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).[2] Specifically, the court provided guidance on performing analysis under Akamai’s two-pronged joint infringement test, which states that joint infringement may arise when an alleged infringer (1) conditions … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Splits on Approach to Analyzing Graham Factors

By Wade Haaland, Allen Sokal and David Farsiou on November 6, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,[1] the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the asserted claims of Merck’s U.S. Patent No. 6,486,150 (the ’150 patent) were obvious despite evidence of commercial success and copying by others. Concerned that the majority’s opinion constituted a shortcut around a proper Graham analysis, Judge … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Provides a Tutorial on Patent Venue

By Allen Sokal on September 27, 2017 Posted in Patent

The Federal Circuit in In re Cray, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-129 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017), has provided extensive guidance to district courts on the meaning of an alleged infringer’s “regular and established place of business” under the second prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). It granted a petition for a writ … Continue Reading

Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola: Use = Benefit for the Purposes of System Claims Infringement

By Suzanne Alton de Eraso on September 21, 2017 Posted in Patent

On Sept. 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit clarified the meaning of the term “use” as it applies to system claims in patent infringement actions. In doing so, the court held that an infringer must benefit from all elements of a system claim in order to infringe, reversing and remanding … Continue Reading

A Cautionary Tale: IPR Petition Denied Based on Third-Party Submission

By David Farsiou on August 30, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Cultec, Inc. v. StormTech LLC, IPR2017-00777, Paper 7 (Aug. 22, 2017), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) denied an inter partes review because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were said to have been previously presented to the Patent Office during ex parte prosecution of the challenged patent by … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit’s Concern Regarding PTAB ‘Panel-Stacking’ – Back To The Future?

By Bill Smith on August 29, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15923, Circuit Judge Dyk, in a concurring opinion joined by Circuit Judge Wallace, questioned “whether the practice of expanding panels where the PTO is dissatisfied with a panel’s earlier decision is the appropriate mechanism of achieving the PTO’s desire for uniformity.” … Continue Reading

Visual Memory v. NVIDIA: The Importance of a Robust Written Description

By Michael Stein on August 17, 2017 Posted in Patent

Introduction In Visual Memory v. NVIDIA (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that Visual Memory’s U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740 is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter. Instead, the court ruled that the ’740 patent claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea. The ’740 Patent … Continue Reading

USPTO Report on Patent Eligible Subject Matter

By Michael Stein on July 26, 2017 Posted in Patent

On July 25, the USPTO published a new report titled “Patent Eligible Subject Matter: Report on Views and Recommendations From the Public.” The report attempts to synthesize public comments on the appropriate boundaries of patent eligible subject matter. The report includes a section reviewing the historical development of patent subject matter eligibility in the … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Reverses a Hindsight Reconstruction of An Important Pharmaceutical Invention

By Allen Sokal, Stephanie Lodise and Laura Gordon on July 20, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz,[1] the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding of obviousness of certain claims of Millennium-owned U.S. Patent No. 6,713,446 (the ‘446 patent), finding that the district court improperly applied the lead compound analysis and the inherency doctrine and clearly erred by rejecting objective indicia of non-obviousness. The disputed claims of … Continue Reading

“All Expenses Paid” Is No Trip to the E.D. Va. for Patent and Trademark Applicants

By BakerHostetler on July 18, 2017 Posted in Patent, USPTO Litigation

Authored by: Kristie Butler, Summer Associate On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit confirmed in Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal (No. 2016-1794) that patent applicants facing rejection from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may seek relief in the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. §145, but ruled that these litigants must pay the … Continue Reading

PTAB Grants Discovery to Underlying Test Data

By David Farsiou on June 19, 2017 Posted in Patent

Discovery in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is typically quite limited, and the PTAB normally is reluctant to grant motions for additional discovery. It is instructive, therefore, when the PTAB does so. In a recent order in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allegan, Inc., IPR2016-01127, Paper 28 (PTAB … Continue Reading

Equivalence in Chemical Cases

By Timothy Doyle on June 13, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Mylan Institutional LLC et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al., 2017-1645 (May 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit attempted to clarify the application of the doctrine of equivalents in chemical cases. Although affirming a district court grant of a preliminary injunction on a patent directed to isosulfan blue (ISB), a dye used for lymph … Continue Reading

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. – Setting the Common Law’s Limits on the Rights of Patent and Copyright Owners

By Robert Welsh on June 5, 2017 Posted in Copyright, Patent

Last week, in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Case No. 15-1189 (May 30, 2017), the Supreme Court ruled that under the “exhaustion doctrine,” patent owners cannot use patent law to impose restrictions on the downstream sales or transfers of lawfully purchased patented goods. The decision took many patent practitioners by surprise. Not … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Announces ‘Uniform and Automatic’ Rule for Patent Exhaustion

By Samuel McMahon on June 1, 2017 Posted in Patent

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 30, issued an opinion in Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15–1189 (S. Ct. May 30, 2017), [hereafter “Lexmark”], reversing the Federal Circuit on two aspects of the patent exhaustion doctrine and redefining the boundaries of the rights afforded a patentee under the Patent Act. Chief Justice … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Invalidates a Patent for Failure to Describe the Accused Product

By Allen Sokal on May 31, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Rivera v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2016-1841 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision invalidating Rivera’s patent under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The opinion provides important lessons for those who draft and prosecute patent applications and also those who attempt to enforce them. Indeed, … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court, Reversing the Federal Circuit, Holds that “Residence” in the Patent Venue Statute Refers to Only a Domestic Corporation’s State of Incorporation

By Allen Sokal on May 24, 2017 Posted in Patent

In a brief, well-reasoned opinion, a unanimous eight-member Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is a stand-alone provision governing venue in patent infringement suits, unaffected by the broad definition of “residence” in the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.Rather, a domestic corporation “resides” in only its state of incorporation. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft … Continue Reading

In Case of First Impression, Federal Circuit Rules that a Patent Owner’s Statements in an IPR Proceeding Can Create Prosecution Disclaimer

By Allen Sokal on May 15, 2017 Posted in Patent

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s statements during an inter partes review (IPR), even if before an institution decision, can create prosecution disclaimer. After the patent owner filed suit, the defendant filed two petitions for IPR. In … Continue Reading