Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Foley & Lardner LLP

Contact  |  View Bio  |  RSS

Latest Posts › Patents

Share:

Federal Circuit Judges Disagree on Use of Post Filing Date Evidence of Nonobviousness

On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. While the order itself may not be...more

10/22/2014 - Bristol-Myers Squibb Obviousness Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Patents Teva Pharmaceuticals

Finally Facing First Inventor to File Issues

It has been over three years since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was signed into law by President Obama, and just over eighteen months since the effective date of the first-inventor-to-file changes to 35 USC § 102....more

10/16/2014 - America Invents Act First-to-File First-to-Invent Patent Reform Patents

Federal Circuit Hears Arguments in Other Myriad Gene Patents Case

On October 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in a case involving the claims of the Myriad gene patents that were not invalidated by the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision. The Federal Circuit is reviewing the...more

10/8/2014 - DNA Myriad v Ambry Patent Litigation Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Preliminary Injunctions

Federal Circuit Upholds Inequitable Conduct Post Therasense For Withheld Information

In American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that three Calcar patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Both courts reached this decision of...more

10/3/2014 - Auto Manufacturers Automotive Industry Honda Inequitable Conduct Patent Litigation Patents USPTO

Federal Circuit Applies "Searching Review" of Stay Pending CBM Proceeding

In Benefit Funding Systems, LLC v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to stay patent infringement litigation while the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

9/30/2014 - America Invents Act Covered Business Method Proceedings Order to Stay Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents USPTO

USPTO Promotes Patent Litigation Toolkit

If you subscribe to USPTO email updates like I do, then you probably received an email recently announcing that the “USPTO Launches Updated Patent Litigation Toolkit and Hosts Free Webinar about Toolkit Resources.” When one...more

9/24/2014 - Patent Litigation Patents USPTO

Update on Mayo Myriad Patent Eligibility From USPTO BCP Partnership Meeting

On September 17, 2015, the USPTO held the first “bicoastal” Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership meeting, with live participation from the USPTO’s main campus in Alexandria, VA and from San Jose...more

9/18/2014 - Biotechnology Chemicals Myriad-Mayo Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Pharmaceutical Professional Conferences USPTO

Court Finds Patent Indefiniteness In Unobtrusive Claims

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

9/16/2014 - AOL Indefiniteness Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Patent Litigation Patents

Australia Upholds Patent Eligibility of Isolated DNA

The Full Federal Court of Australia affirmed that isolated nucleic acids, i.e. whether it be DNA or RNA, are patentable subject matter in Australia. While an appeal to the High Court of Australia may be possible, absent an...more

9/9/2014 - Australia DNA Genetic Materials Human Genes Myriad Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents

Federal Circuit Finds Apotex ANDAs Do Not Infringe Lysteda Patents

In two decisions issued under the same name (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for Lysteda®, but found that they were not infringed by either...more

9/3/2014 - ANDA Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Patents Prescription Drugs

Federal Circuit Upholds Validity of Lysteda Patents

In two decisions issued under the same name (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for Lysteda®, but found that they were not infringed by either...more

8/29/2014 - ANDA Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical Patents Prescription Drugs

Humira Patent Invalid for Obviousness Type Double Patenting

In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that a second patent covering AbbVie’s Humira product is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type...more

8/26/2014 - Obviousness Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical

Federal Circuit Upholds Inequitable Conduct Defense Against Apotex Patent

In Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that Apotex’s patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. While affirming on the ground of “but-for materiality,” the Federal...more

8/19/2014 - Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents

First Post Grant Review Petition Shows That Amending Claims Is Not Child's Play

The first Post Grant Review petition visible to the public was filed August 5, 2014, against U.S. Patent 8,684,420. The patent was granted from an application filed July 26, 2013, but claims priority through a series of...more

8/11/2014 - Patents Post-Grant Review

Comments on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Due by July 31

This week brings the July 31, 2014 deadline for submitting written comments on two USPTO patent subject matter eligibility guidance documents: The “Myriad-Mayo” Guidance issued March 4, 2014 (for claims involving laws of...more

7/29/2014 - CLS Bank v Alice Corp Myriad-Mayo Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Public Comment Rulemaking Process USPTO

Why Are Method of Treatment Claims and Method of Manufacture Claims Subject to Scrutiny Under the USPTO Patent Subject Matter...

The USPTO has asked for written comments on its patent subject matter eligibility guidance by July 31, 2014. In this article, I discuss why therapeutic method claims and method of manufacture claims should not be subject to...more

7/16/2014 - CLS Bank v Alice Corp Mayo v. Prometheus Method of Manufacture Patents Myriad Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents SCOTUS Section 101 Treatment Method Patents USPTO

Federal Circuit Holds That Even Functional Claims Require Structural Fence Posts

In AbbVie Deutschland Gmbh v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that found AbbVie’s patents directed to anti-IL-12 antibodies invalid for lack of adequate written description. As...more

7/14/2014 - Biotechnology Functionality Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Patents

Putting Structure and Function Into Context for USPTO Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

The USPTO’s ”Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products” has been criticized for requiring a product to be markedly different in...more

7/9/2014 - Minerals Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Patents Public Comment USPTO

Federal Circuit Looks for a Different Kind of Unexpected Results in BMS v. Teva

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more

7/3/2014 - ANDA Bristol-Myers Squibb Obviousness Patent Litigation Patents Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Patents Prescription Drugs Teva Pharmaceuticals

USPTO Asks for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Comments by July 31, 2014

In a June 30, 2014 Federal Register notice, the USPTO requested public comments by July 31, 2014 on patent subject matter eligibility under the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank...more

6/30/2014 - Alice Corporation CLS Bank CLS Bank v Alice Corp Mayo v. Prometheus Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Public Comment SCOTUS Software USPTO

How the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Undermines the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, finding that patents directed to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’” were invalid as being drawn...more

6/25/2014 - Alice Corporation CLS Bank CLS Bank v Alice Corp Mayo v. Prometheus Patent Litigation Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Risk Mitigation SCOTUS Software

Supreme Court: Generic Computer Implementation Does Not Render Abstract Ideas Patentable

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, which was previously discussed. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court held, consistent with its precedent,...more

6/20/2014 - Alice Corporation CLS Bank CLS Bank v Alice Corp Mayo v. Prometheus Patent Litigation Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Popular Risk Mitigation Software

Federal Circuit Says Mistaken Belief Required for Reissue Error

In In re Dinsmore, the Federal Circuit held that the reissue process could not be used to correct an alleged defect in a terminal disclaimer between patents that were not commonly owned, because there had been no “mistaken...more

6/17/2014 - Patent Litigation Patents Reissue Patents Terminal Disclaimer USPTO

Is Evidence of Obviousness Always Required?

In K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that upheld the decision of the Central Reexamination Unit Examiner that refused to hold...more

6/13/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Obviousness Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents USPTO

Supreme Court Adopts Reasonable Certainty Test for Definiteness

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

6/11/2014 - Definiteness Indefiniteness Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Reasonable Certainty Standard SCOTUS

154 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7