Appeals Patents

News & Analysis as of

Physical Combinability of References Not Necessarily Required for Obviousness

Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the obviousness determination of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), explaining that it is not necessary for two...more

Claim Terms with No Specialized Meaning in the Art Always Linked to Specification

Emphasizing the public-notice function of a patent’s specification, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s construction of four patent claim terms based entirely on intrinsic evidence....more

Federal Circuit Review | July 2016

Obvious Combinations Do Not Need to Be Physically Combinable - In Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1533, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity finding...more

Prior Art References Introduced After IPR Institution Are Permissible to Show State of Art

Addressing issues related to introducing additional prior art references after institution of an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or...more

The Whole Claim Is More Inventive Than the Sum of Its Generic Parts

Addressing the issue of subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the limitations of the challenged claims, when considered as an ordered...more

PTAB Institution Decision Does Not Shift Burden from the Patent Challenger to the Patentee

The Federal Circuit previously clarified that a petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc. On July 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit’s In re...more

PTO Cannot Raise & Decide Unpatentability Theories Never Presented by the Petitioner

In In re Magnum Tools International, Ltd., [2015-1300] (July 25, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 were invalid for obviousness. The Federal...more

Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation

Who enforces a patent? When can a district court patent case be filed? What does the patent holder have to prove to win an infringement suit? Fenwick patent litigators Charlene Morrow and Dargaye Churnet cover these and other...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

Federal Circuit’s Application of Mayo Revives Biotech Patent

In Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd v. CellzDirect, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling of patent invalidity under Section 101, reviving a biotech patent to a method of preserving hepatocytes, liver cells, for medical use. The...more

Patent Law: Making On-Sale Bar Jurisprudence Coherent

“Rather than rest our decision on formalities, our focus is on what makes our on-sale bar jurisprudence coherent: preventing inventors from filing for patents a year or more after the invention has been commercially marketed,...more

Federal Circuit Rules for The Medicines Company in Patent Litigation

In an en banc decision on July 12, 2016 in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit established the circumstances under which a product manufactured according to product-by-process claims is invalid under the...more

USPTO Initiates Post-Prosecution Pilot Program

On Monday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice in the Federal Register (81 Fed. Reg. 44845) regarding the initiation of a new pilot program intended to enhance patent practice during the period after the...more

New After-Final Pilot Prosecution Program Allows Enhanced Patent Practice

Effective July 12, 2016, the PTO is initiating a Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) to test its impact on enhancing patent practice during the period subsequent to a final rejection and prior to the filing of a notice of...more

It Ain’t Over ‘Till It’s Over

It seems that the majority of patent applications, including those that eventually issue as patents, face a “final” rejection at some point. “Final” does not not always mean final, however, and there are at least eight...more

Status Quo At The PTAB For Now: Supreme Court Makes No Changes to IPR Practice

Recently, the Supreme Court declined to make any changes to IPR procedure in its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). Relying primarily on statutory language and concepts of agency rulemaking...more

Federal Circuit Backs Amgen on Key Provision of Biosimilars Statute

The Federal Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is a requirement for all biosimilar applicants regardless of whether...more

Perspectives On The PTAB - Inaugural Issue

We are pleased to share this Perspectives on the PTAB newsletter. Its content is directed toward providing information and analysis of the decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We hope that this newsletter...more

Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

As we have had the occasion to say before regarding subject matter eligibility, "[o]ne swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day . . . ," but the Federal Circuit may have engendered a glimmer of hope that it will once...more

Federal Circuit Rules on Biosimilar Notice Requirement

Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide Notice of Commercial Launch: What You Need To Know - Case Background - In an opinion released today in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held biosimilar applicants who...more

Burden on Motion to Amend in IPR

Applying its own precedent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the burden remains on the patent owner to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims over the art of record in an inter partes...more

Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval

Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval July 06, 2016 According to the Federal Circuit, post-licensure notice 180 days before commercial marketing is mandatory for biosimilars....more

Focusing on the Second Step of Alice, Federal Circuit Finds Inventive Concept in Software Patent in BASCOM

Arming software-patentees with additional precedent in favor of eligibility for software patents post-Alice, the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2016 handed down its decision in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T...more

BASCOM—Federal Circuit Holds Internet Content Filtering Patent Passes Alice Test

In a Section 101 analysis under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., “[a]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”—even if individual claim...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity for Exergen’s Non-contact Thermometer Patent

In a per curiam decision the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ holding that certain claims of Exergen Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 7,787,938 was invalid as being directed to an...more

364 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 15
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×