Archives: Patent

Subscribe to Patent RSS Feed

Federal Circuit Splits on Approach to Analyzing Graham Factors

Wade HaalandDavid FarsiouBy Wade Haaland, Allen Sokal and David Farsiou on 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 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 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

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

Bill SmithBy Bill Smith on 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

Michael SteinBy Michael Stein on 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

Michael SteinBy Michael Stein on 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

Stephanie LodiseLaura GordonBy Allen Sokal, Stephanie Lodise and Laura Gordon on 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

BakerHostetlerBy BakerHostetler on 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

David FarsiouBy David Farsiou on 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

Timothy DoyleBy Timothy Doyle on 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 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 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 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 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 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

Federal Circuit Remands Novel Issue on Patent Marking Requirement

By Suzanne Alton de Eraso and Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
On April 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated an award of more than $15 million in damages because a plaintiff’s licensee failed to mark patented articles. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2016-1729 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2017). The decision underscores the importance of not … Continue Reading

SCOTUS Declares That Time Has Expired for Laches Defense in Patent Cases

By Suzanne Alton de Eraso on Posted in Patent
On March 21, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products that laches is not a defense to a damages claim when the Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations has yet to expire. This decision aligns with the Court’s ruling in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 572 … Continue Reading

Availability of Reissue After an Invalidity Determination

By Samuel McMahon on Posted in Patent
A recent law review article discusses reissue as a potential cure for patentees who have had their claims invalidated by a court or the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).[1] Under 35 U.S.C. § 251, reissue is available when “any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Appears to Narrow the Exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Unquestionably, the narrower a patent’s claims, the more likely they are to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But if you have an invention with broad applicability, how broadly can you claim it without running into eligibility problems? The answer, both literally and figuratively: the sky’s the limit. In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Considers a New Issue on Appeal, Lectures the PTO on its Burden to Establish Obviousness, and Reveals an Internal Split on What to do When the PTO Fails to Carry That Burden

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
The Federal Circuit in Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1475 (Feb. 27, 2017), made several interesting points and revealed a disagreement among four of its judges about the proper disposition when the PTO fails to carry its burden in “examination appeals.” More specifically, the court explained when an appellant might … Continue Reading

Requirements of § 121’s Safe Harbor: Ensuring That Divisional Applications Will Be Protected Against OTDP Rejections

By Samuel McMahon on Posted in Patent
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) narrowly construed the so-called safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121, affirming the examiner’s rejection of a patent application under the doctrine of “obviousness-type double patenting” (OTDP). Ex parte Sauerberg, Appeal 2015-007064 2017 WL 150016 *1 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2017). The safe harbor protects … Continue Reading
LexBlog