The Federal Circuit decision in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. is a good reminder that even standard “patent lingo” can cause trouble down the line. Now that the court has denied rehearing en banc (with Judges...more
In an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more
In LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corporation, one of the many issues the Federal Circuit decided was that functional claim language did not create a divided infringement situation, even though an independent actor could impact...more
In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims reciting a limitation that could be calculated in several ways indefinite where the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history failed to...more
9/3/2015
/ Ambiguous ,
Dow Chemical ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patents ,
Reasonable Certainty Standard ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva v Sandoz
I don’t usually write about district court decisions, but the patent indefiniteness ruling in Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp. (D. Del., July 26, 2015), caught my attention. The court held the asserted claim...more
In its decision on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit once again held the Biosig patent claims not indefinite, reversing the district court decision to the contrary. The decision came in Biosig Instruments,...more
In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the test for patent indefiniteness set forth in the recent Supreme Court decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, and found that claims reciting an...more
On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” test for patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, and...more
In In re Packard, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding the rejection of Packard’s claims for indefiniteness. The per curiam decision approaches the issue from the...more
On January 10, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., to review the legal standard for holding a patent claim invalid as indefinite, under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph....more
In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as indefinite, because the claims were not “insolubly ambiguous.” This case...more