Tag Archives: patent

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.: The Federal Circuit Revisits the Defense of Inequitable Conduct

Samuel McMahonBy Samuel McMahon on Posted in Uncategorized
In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V., No. 2016-1346, slip op. (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2017) (hereafter, “Slip Op.”), the Federal Circuit seems to have loosened the standards for finding a patentee culpable of inequitable conduct during patent prosecution. By affirming the district court’s finding of inequitable conduct, the court in Regeneron condones the use … 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

Allen SokalStephanie 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

By 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

Robert WelshBy 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

Samuel McMahonBy 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

Allen SokalBy 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

Allen SokalBy 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

Allen SokalBy 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

Suzanne Alton de ErasoAllen SokalBy 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

Availability of Reissue After an Invalidity Determination

Samuel McMahonBy 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

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

Allen SokalBy 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

Samuel McMahonBy 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

Federal Circuit looks to provisional patent application in determining claim scope

Erin CaldwellBy Erin Caldwell on Posted in Patent
Differences between a provisional patent application and a nonprovisional application claiming priority to the provisional application may inform claim construction, following the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh.[1] In MPHJ Tech, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision in which the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims of … Continue Reading

When Obvious Isn’t Obvious: Personal Web Technologies

Brendan ClarkBy Brendan Clark on Posted in Patent
On Valentine’s Day 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusions of obviousness in Personal Web Technologies, LLC due to insufficient analysis in the board’s decision. Judge Taranto, joined by Judge Chen and Judge Stoll, explicitly asserted the court’s role in enforcing the principles of administrative … Continue Reading

Licensees Stymied by Sovereign Immunity Both in Federal Court and at PTAB

Allen SokalBy Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
  Licensees Covidien LP, Medtronic PLC, and Medtronic, Inc., failed to obtain any relief, at least so far, in federal court or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) because of parallel holdings that patent owner University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (UFRF), is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. University of Florida Research Foundation, … Continue Reading

The Continuing “Evolution” of Alice: a GUI Example

Samuel McMahonBy Samuel McMahon on Posted in Patent
On January 18, 2017, the Federal Circuit, in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) (NEWMAN, J.), issued a non-precedential decision affirming the district court’s holding that claims directed to “[a] method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Divided Infringement, Inducement of Infringement, and Indefiniteness

Allen SokalBy Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Patent owners will applaud the Federal Circuit’s latest pronouncement on divided infringement, inducement of infringement, and claim definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-2067 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2017). On all three issues, the opinion, authored by Chief Judge Prost and joined by Circuit Judges … Continue Reading
LexBlog