Fish Post Grant Radio: Episode #16: Kevin McNish, McNish PLLC
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as obvious. See...more
Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1391, -1425 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2024) In the Court’s only precedential patent opinion this week, the Court affirmed a jury finding that use of Amazon’s “Alexa” products...more
The provisions of U.S. regulatory law regarding FDA approval for less than all the indications for which an innovator drug was approved under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii) (the so-called "skinny label) has in the recent past...more
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1906 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated an approximately $2.2 billion damages award against appellant Intel...more
September 21, 2023, marked the sixth anniversary of the significant amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations). This article provides an update on activities in the sixth year...more
In its contingent cross-appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) adverse decision on priority against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier...more
Maine law regarding cross-appeals has long been murky, and as a result that subject has often been the subject of commentary both at this blog (here and here, for instance) and elsewhere. The Law Court brought additional...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury’s noninfringement verdict, finding that the district court correctly interpreted the article “a” and antecedent “said” in the asserted claims to require that a...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. ADASA INC. v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION [OPINION] (2022-1092, 12/16/2022) (Moore, Hughes, and Stark) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded...more
In the Michigan Court of Appeals, when a party files an appeal as of right (or the Court of Appeals grants leave to appeal), the appellee is entitled to file a cross-appeal. MCR 7.207(A)(1) (“When an appeal of right is filed...more
Fish principal and host Rick Bisenius speaks with Kevin McNish from McNish PLLC to discuss appeals to the Federal Circuit from the PTAB, including: - What factors to consider when deciding whether to request a rehearing at...more
On January 13, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in an interesting case involving internet domain names. In resolving the case, the panel took the opportunity to clarify when a cross-appeal is needed...more
Yesterday the Law Court, in an opinion written by Justice Connors, Concord General Mutual Ins. Co. v. Estate of Collette J. Boure, touched on two important appellate issues – one of which has been addressed often on this...more
Much has been said on this blog about when one should cross-appeal, given the Law Court’s jurisprudence on the topic. I most recently addressed the issue here. As I noted then, there is some tension between the text of the...more
In the only precedential patent opinion issued this week, the Federal Circuit determined multiple issues in cross-appeals from the district court’s disposition of post-trial motions following a jury trial. The dispute...more
I recently blogged about the need to file a cross-appeal of a favorable judgment in order to preserve an argument that provides alternate grounds for affirmance at the Law Court. As I noted, the Court has declined to reach...more
The Law Court recently addressed an issue of great importance to appellate practitioners: does a party need to cross-appeal a favorable judgment in order to preserve an argument providing alternate grounds for affirmance,...more
HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Before Prost, Newman, and Reyna. Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Claims using “consisting...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Reyna, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party must file a cross-appeal when their argument requires modification of a decision. Under the...more
ArcelorMittal Atlantique Et Lorraine v. AK Steel Corporation, Appeal No. 2017-1637 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) - In an opinion originally filed as sealed on Nov. 5 and unsealed on Nov. 18, the Federal Circuit vacated and...more
Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2084, -2085, -2095, -2096, -2097, -2098, -2099, -2117, 2118 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018) In appeals of six inter partes review final decisions on three...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously leaves no room for assignor estoppel to apply in...more
Early last month, we reported that in the Amgen v. Hospira BPCIA litigation concerning Hospira’s Retacrit™ (epoetin alfa) biosimilar, Hospira had filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the Delaware district court’s final...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: While obviousness of apparatus claims “capable of” a particular function may be shown by...more