Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

A second patent in a chain falls to obviousness-type double patenting challenge

The court had previously determined that The Kennedy Trust’s U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the “parent patent”) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) to U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (“the grandparent“). At issue...more

Dissent at the PTAB Leads to … Unpatentability

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConvaTec Technologies, Inc. - In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that 13 claims of the patent-at-issue were anticipated or obvious and rejected the...more

PTAB Discovery of Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness: How to Get Necessary Prior Authorization

Discovery limitations play an important role in the differences between district court patent litigation and actions at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). So far, the PTAB has placed significant restrictions on...more

Examiner and Board Must Be Consistent in Prior Art-Based Rejections of Similarly-Worded Claims

Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee - Addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) erred by rejecting some claims as obvious, but not...more

A Compound Is Obvious Where Only Minor Changes to a Prior Art “Lead Compound” Are Required to Make the Claimed Compound

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...more

Obviousness Only Requires Reasonable Expectation of Success of One Compound Encompassed by Broad Genus Claims

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the issue of showing a reasonable expectation of success when making obviousness combinations in the context of broad genus claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC (D.N.J.)

The defendants include generic ANDA applicants (the “generic defendants”) and the API manufacturer, Johnson Matthey, Inc. and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials (collectively “JM”). Six summary judgment motions were...more

Public Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings – the USPTO is Listening

As mentioned in a previous article, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a series of roundtables throughout the United States this spring to solicit public feedback on AIA trials. Having received some feedback during...more

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Case Name: Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10710 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna and Chen presiding; Opinion by Prost, C.J.; Dissent-in-part by Chen,...more

Need Nexus Between the Claimed Feature and the Marketed Product to Demonstrate Commercial Success

St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich. - In the final written decision of an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) canceled all claims at issue on...more

Testimony of Expert Witness: Key Patentability Arguments in Inter Partes Review

SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Anest Iwata Corp. - In a final written decision, in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejected a patent owner’s motion to...more

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

Expert's Failure to Properly Apply Obviousness Standard Leads to Vacated Jury Verdict

InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc. - Addressing the sufficiency of expert testimony to support a jury’s finding of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Munchkin, Inc. and Toys “R” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, LTD.

Decision Date: April 21, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D617,465 - Holding: Claimed design is obvious and therefore UNPATENTABLE - Opinion: Petitioners Munchkin, Inc. and Toys...more

Is the PTAB a Death Sentence for Patent Rights?

In September 2012, inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) patent review procedures launched at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Proponents of these processes believed that a PTO-affiliated forum...more

Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim

On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___...more

Keeping Score at the PTAB

Motorola v. Mobile Scanning; Adidas v. Nike; Berk-Tek v. Belden; Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. - In the final written decisions of five inter partes reviews (IPRs) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more

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

Guest Post -- Obvious To Try My Patience: Federal Circuit's Evolving Measure of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103

When I was your age, and Pluto was a planet, "obvious to try" was not the standard for evaluating patentability under 35 USC § 103. In KSR v. Teleflex, the US Supreme Court qualified this by rejecting the Federal Circuit's...more

Pre-AIA Statute Did Not Give Patent Owner in an Ex Parte Reexamination the Right to Bring an Action in District Court

In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien - Addressing whether a patent owner involved in a pre-America Invents Act (AIA) ex parte reexamination, could challenge an adverse reexamination decision in a district court...more

Design Patent Case Digest: MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP

Decision Date: April 2, 2014 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D634,488 and D634,487 - Holding: N.D. of Ohio’s Grant of Summary Judgment of Invalidity AFFIRMED...more

Combining Two Drugs Is Not Always Obvious

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of combining two known hypertension medications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling of...more

Gilead Warns: Examine Patent Portfolios for Double Patenting Pitfalls

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - Addressing invalidation of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s...more

A Combination of References Need Only Provide a “Reasonable Expectation of Success”

Hoffmann La-Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the validity of a dosing regimen patent in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower...more

IP Newsflash - May 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Newsgroup Post Held to be A Printed Publication and Anticipatory Prior Art - On May 27, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision granting summary judgment of invalidity by the...more

102 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5