News & Analysis as of

In Defense of the Federal Circuit: A Response to Judge Wood

The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Diane Wood, recently delivered a speech provocatively titled "Is It Time to Abolish the Federal Circuit's Exclusive Jurisdiction in Patent Cases?" While...more

With Great Power Comes Great Responsbility

Recently, a Seventh Circuit Judge penned an article over at Law360 setting forth her belief that the Federal Circuit should no longer have exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. For those of you unfamiliar with our...more

News from Abroad: Second Referral for the "Broccoli" Patent Case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Following the issuance of decision G2/07 in connection with the "Broccoli" patent, which discussed whether plant breeding methods were excluded from patentability as essentially biological processes for the production of...more

The Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Appeals in Which Damages and Willfulness Remain Unresolved

The Federal Circuit green-lights earlier and more appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) confers to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") the jurisdiction to hear appeals in civil actions...more

Federal Circuit: Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Appeal

On April 19, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s judgment of invalidity because the defendant had not cross-appealed invalidity in a prior appeal involving the defendant’s winning judgment of...more

Federal Circuit Announces Review of Appellate Standard for Claim Construction

On March 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a rehearing en banc in Lighting Ballast Control, LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp, et al. This order sets the stage for a potential change...more

Idenix seen as unlikely to prevail against Gilead in HCV patent interference

Idenix Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:IDIX) faces an uphill battle to sufficiently demonstrate enablement in its ongoing patent interference against Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ:GILD) regarding their respective hepatitis C (HCV)...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 2 February 2013

In This Issue: • Licensing to Foreign Manufacturers Satisfies Domestic Industry • Appeal Found to Be Moot in Light of “Side Bet” • Mere Design Choice Leads to Obviousness Finding • Design Patent Infringement...more

Federal Circuit Clears a Path for Defendant Motions to Transfer with In re EMC Corp. Order

On January 29, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its second mandamus decision in In re EMC Corp., 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013). Although the appellate court ultimately denied a petition for a writ directing the...more

Patent Watch: Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

On February 14, 2013, in, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Bryson, Wallach*) reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment following a bench trial that Watson did not infringe...more

Antitrust and Competition Newsletter - February 2013

In This Issue: - A Modern Look at the Nine ‘No-Nos’ of Patent Licensing Under U.S. Antitrust Law: The First Four ‘No-Nos’ - Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Watson Reverse Payment Settlement Case - 7th Circuit...more

USPTO Announces New, Higher USPTO Patent Fees

The USPTO has published the new patent fee structure that it is implementing pursuant to its fee-setting authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)....more

Patent Watch: Allflex U.S.A., Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc.

[Where] the appellant has identified no relationship between the valuation placed on the appeal and the issues the appellant wishes to challenge, the parties have simply placed a "side bet" on the outcome of the appeal, which...more

Australian Patent Term Extension: A “Long-Term” Battle

If it was ever in doubt as to whether an application for an extension of a pharmaceutical patent term could be late filed after the due date, this recent decision would seem to have removed it, clarifying that late filing is...more

USPTO Issues First Decision Instituting CBM

On January 9, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its first decision in a Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM) proceeding, instituting the trial on all claims requested. The decision issued in...more

Patent Watch: C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos

[T]he preamble constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis, or when it "is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body." On December 27, 2012, in C.W. Zumbiel Co. v....more

News from Abroad: Availability of Documents at the EPO -- EPO Board of Appeal Decision T1839/11

Originally published in Forresters on January 6, 2012. Background: The patent - NovozymesFollowing grant of a patent to Novozymes in November 2009, the patent was asserted in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands...more

Trademark Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

In This Issue: • Owner of “WOULD YOU RATHER...?” Wins $8.3 Million • PC ON A STICK Is Not Merely Descriptive • Sonoma Wine Producer Wins Geographically Limited Injunction • Brand Owners Awarded Favorable Damages...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more

Patent Watch: Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.

[A] finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages. On December 19, 2012, in Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech....more

Patent Watch: Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc.

Given Congress' legitimate concerns with respect to the cost and constitutionality of pending qui tam actions, we conclude that the retroactive application of amended § 292 to pending actions was a rational means of pursuing...more

Patent Watch In re Yamazaki

[When a patent issues] with its terminal disclaimer in effect, that disclaimer [becomes part of the "original patent" for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 251 and serves] to define its term, regardless of any further term that might...more

22 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1