Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2017

WilmerHale
Contact

The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc. (No. 2015-1113, 4/6/17) (Dyk, Wallach, Hughes)

April 6, 2017 12:05 PM

Dyk, J. Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent.  All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification, which was not met by the accused ANDA. “The patentee's construction of [the step] … attempts to claim all solutions to the identified … problem, without describing the entire range of solutions to that problem. {This] construction is therefore not permissible.”

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

 

Wasica Finance GmBH v. Continental Automotive Systems (No. 2015-2078, 4/4/17) (Prost, Schall, Chen)

April 4, 2017 4:57 PM

Schall, J. Affirming in part and reversing in part PTAB (un)patentability decisions in IPR proceedings. Where the specification and claims use words “interchangeably[,] [t]his drafting choice equates the two terms for claim construction purposes.” 

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc.  (No. 2016-1678, 4/4/17) (Prost, Wallach, Stoll)

April 4, 2017 1:12 PM

Wallach, J. Affirming PTAB rulings of obviousness in inter partes reviews. Prior judicial decisions did not bind the PTAB. “[E]ven if the record were the same, … the PTAB properly may reach a different conclusion based on the same evidence,” because of the different burdens of proof in judicial and IPR proceedings. 

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA Inc. (No. 2016-1026, 4/3/17) (Prost, Newman, Taranto)

April 3, 2017 10:08 AM

Taranto, J. Upon rehearing of case after decision at Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc. [OPINION], denying rehearing en banc but granting in part panel rehearing and issuing a new opinion that affirmed the district court's liability and damages rulings but vacated in part and remanded for further consideration the injunction against a non-party insofar as the injunction reaches conduct by the non-party regarding the covered products that goes beyond abetting a new violation by the named defendant. 

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© WilmerHale | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

WilmerHale
Contact
more
less

WilmerHale on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide