Tag Archives: patent

Major 101 Decision – Enfish v. Microsoft

Today in Enfish v. Microsoft, the Federal Circuit held software claims patent eligible, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on 101. This is a major decision because it is only the second since Alice where the Federal Circuit has held patent claims eligible (DDR being the first). Further, the case heavily emphasizes that … Continue Reading

USPTO Releases Next Iteration of Examiner Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

On May 5, 2016, the USPTO released an update to its examiner guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. The update includes a new set of life science examples, a memorandum to the patent examining corps with instructions on formulating subject matter eligibility rejections and responding to applicants’ replies, an index of eligibility examples, and an … Continue Reading

Amended PTAB Rules to Take Effect on May 2, 2016

On May 2, 2016, amended rules governing post-grant proceedings before the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), including inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business methods (“CBM”), will take effect. The rules apply to all currently pending and future proceedings before the PTAB. The primary amendments are: Testimonial Evidence Permitted in Patent … Continue Reading

Patent Drafting Post-Alice: Broadly Define the Problem, and Narrowly Claim the Solutions

The notion of strategic claim drafting, which experienced patent practitioners understand, is all about writing specific, narrowly defined claims to cover the strategically important “choke points” in a value chain.[1] The rationale is that the narrowness of the claim makes it less vulnerable to a validity attack on prior art grounds. In the discussion below, … Continue Reading

Patent Office Updates Rules for Post-Grant Proceeding Duty of Candor

The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently amended 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 to include a certification requirement similar to that of Rule 11. Section 42.11 prescribes the duty of candor owed to the Patent Office. As noted in the Federal Register, the Office sees the new rule as preventative in nature. Despite comments expressing … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing on Whether Section 337 Includes Digital Imports

The Federal Circuit debate begun in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), continued with the court’s denial of rehearing en banc in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 2014-1527(Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2016) (Prost, C.J., concurring, and Newman, J., dissenting). In Suprema, the en banc … Continue Reading

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of patent infringement litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In its 2013 FTC v. Actavis opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain settlements involving “reverse payments” may … Continue Reading

Filing an ANDA May Expose Generic Manufacturers to Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Suits

On March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling in two companion cases that West Virginia-based defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware. Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 2015-1456 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016); AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 2015-1460 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, … Continue Reading

Divided Federal Circuit Panel Creates Patent Agent Privilege

[W]e find that the unique roles of patent agents, the congressional recognition of their authority to act, the Supreme Court’s characterization of their activities as the practice of law, and the current realities of patent litigation counsel in favor of recognizing an independent patent-agent privilege. Litigators  –  put your discovery pencils down. Inventors –pick up … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Upholds Inequitable Conduct Ruling in Ohio Willow Wood Company

In the latest iteration of Ohio Willow Wood Company[1] (OWW), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling of inequitable conduct against OWW despite the presence of a litigation screen. The Federal Circuit had affirmed summary judgment on invalidity, reversed a summary judgment ruling of no inequitable conduct, and remanded the case to the Southern … Continue Reading

Addition Through Subtraction, Broadening Reissue Upheld in Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 2014-5082 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Zoltek versus the United States case might be characterized as if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…and then try one more time. Zoltek took three trips to the Federal Circuit before having the validity of its patent for materials used in the B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter planes confirmed. Even before filing … Continue Reading

New Examiner Training Materials on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent subject matter eligibility, patent stakeholders have anticipated a reaction from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in regard to patent examination practice relative to 35 U.S.C. 101. While many interested parties hoped that Alice would settle the issue, few would argue that … Continue Reading

Upcoming Federal Circuit Decision Presents Opportunity for Clarification of Patentable Subject Matter

Since Alice,[1] consistently defining the bounds of statutory subject matter in computer arts confounds even the most experienced attorneys. E-commerce software combining visual elements of multiple parties’ websites is patent eligible,[2] but a motion-tracking system claiming inertial sensors is not.[3] While the results have cut sharply against patent holders asserting or prosecuting software properties, legal … Continue Reading

As Urged by PhRMA and BIO, Supreme Court Agrees to Review Claim Construction Standard Used in Patent Office Trials

Pharmaceutical companies have reason to be pleased with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-446 (Cuozzo). The Supreme Court has agreed to review the … Continue Reading

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Denies Inter Partes Review of Patent Claiming the Deuterated Form of a Known Compound

In Neptune Generics, LLC v. Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01313, Paper No. 25 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2015) (“Neptune”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued an opinion denying institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,317 B2 (“the ’317 patent”). The ’317 patent claims an analog of venlafaxine (Effexor®) in which nine … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit denies en banc review of Ariosa v. Sequenom

On December 2, 2015, an almost unanimous Federal Circuit decision was issued denying the en banc rehearing of Ariosa v. Sequenom, a case having significant consequences for diagnostic patents and Section 101 case law in general.[1] The concurrences and dissent in the Ariosa case offer insight into how the various judges perceive the existing Section … Continue Reading

Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc.

In Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc., Nos. 2014-1274, -1277, -1276, and -1278 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Momenta II”), the Federal Circuit found that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), “made” is limited to steps directly related to manufacturing products and excludes isolated quality control steps. The court also revisited its prior … Continue Reading

Methods of treating a subset of patients are likely nonobvious if the subset exhibits unexpected results

In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.,[1] a recent decision involving methods of treating a specific subset of patients, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) ruled that, although the claims of the patent at issue were invalid as obvious, singling out a particular subset of patients for treatment can still … Continue Reading

Denial of a Preliminary Injunction Against Twilio

Twilio, Inc. is a cloud communications company that earlier this year raised $100 million in funding, a figure that placed it in the Unicorn Club—those startup companies with valuations over a billion dollars. Twilio has made a name for itself as a cloud-based communications platform. But Twilio faced a problem when it was sued by … Continue Reading

Attorney Fees for Post-Grant Patent Challenge Proceedings Before the USPTO May Be Recoverable in Exceptional Cases Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

Parties accused of patent infringement are turning more and more to post-grant challenge proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as a faster and cheaper means for invalidating the asserted claims. A recent federal district court order indicates that the fees and costs associated with such proceedings may be recoverable if the … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

While an adverse claim construction generally cannot, alone, form the basis for an exceptional case finding, [a] party cannot assert baseless infringement claims and must continually assess the soundness of pending infringement claims, especially after an adverse claim construction. On August 9, 2013, in Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals … Continue Reading
LexBlog