News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Patents

Federal Circuit Finds Velcade Patent Not Obvious Under Lead Compound Analysis

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court decision that invalidated one of the Orange Book-listed patents covering the anti-cancer drug Velcade. In so doing, the court...more

Federal Circuit Thoroughly Reverses District Court Findings of Velcade® Patent Obviousness

On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

The Circuit issued only one precedential patent case this week, reversing a determination of obviousness as to a Millennium Pharmaceutical patent covering its blockbuster cancer drug Velcade®, thus extending the life of...more

UK Supreme Court broadens scope of patent protection

by Dechert LLP on

The UK Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly sets out a revised approach to assessing the scope of protection of patents. The new approach is likely to confer greater protection on patent owners, by providing...more

Unexpected Results of an Obvious Process are Non-obvious

In Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., [2015-2066, 2016-1008, 2016-1009, 2016-1010, 2016-1109, 2016-1110, 2016-1283, 2016-1762] (July 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2017

by WilmerHale on

Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2015-2006, 7/17/17) (Newman, Mayer, O'Malley) - Newman, J.Reversing and vacating judgments of invalidity for obviousness in consolidated appeals. ...more

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims

In IPCOM GmbH & Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation, and...more

Method-of-Treatment Claims That Did Not Require a Specific Level of Efficacy Held Unpatentable as Obvious in Light Of References...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review determining Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 owned by Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd. unpatentable as obvious...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Reasonable Notice to Patent Owner Is a Must

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) decision finding a patent obvious and directed the PTAB to provide sufficient factual support for its...more

PTAB Issues Additional Final Written Decisions Finding AbbVie’s Humira Patent Unpatentable

by Goodwin on

On July 6, 2017, the PTAB issued two additional Final Written Decisions finding AbbVie’s U.S. Patent 8,889,135 (“the ‘135 patent”) unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. The Final Written Decisions were issued in...more

The Federal Circuit Supports the PTAB in Casting a Wider Obviousness Net

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the PTAB” or “the Board”) decision invalidating Outdry Technologies Corp.’s (“Outdry”) patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit elaborated on the...more

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? - In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,...more

Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on PTAB Final Written Decision For Procedural APA Violation

In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant...more

For Waterproofing Patent, Arguments Against Obviousness Didn’t Hold Water

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Outdry Technologies Corporation, v. Geox S.P.A. discusses some criteria for determining whether or not the explanations provided by the PTAB in an IPR decision are sufficient to support a...more

“Catch-All” Phrases Insufficient To Give Proper Notice of Grounds for Petition

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit made clear that “catch-all” phrases in a Petition for IPR and/or a Board’s Institution Decision are insufficient to put a patent owner on...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more

Kyle Bass Ends with a Bang: Success in Final PTAB Decision

by Fish & Richardson on

On June 7, 2017, Kyle Bass received his last final written decision in a long list of PTAB decisions rendered over the past two years as Kyle Bass sought to invalidate pharma patents. U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010 (the “’010...more

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of...more

General Statements in Petition and Institution Decision Did Not Give Patent Owner Fair Notice of the Grounds of Invalidity in the...

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., [2016-1984] (June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1–2, 4–14, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 were obvious, and...more

Federal Circuit Upholds IPR Decision of Unpatentability in Skky v. MindGeek

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit upheld an IPR final written decision by the PTAB holding that MindGeek’s claims were unpatentable in Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., No. 2016-2018 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2017). ...more

Recent PTAB Decision Highlights Importance of Secondary Considerations in Obviousness Challenges

Obviousness challenges are popular post-grant challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Generally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (“§ 103”), the courts make legal and factual inquiries into (1) the scope and content...more

The PTAB Can Offer A Second Chance At Obviousness—Even After The Federal Circuit Affirms The Non-Obviousness of the Patent Claims

by K&L Gates LLP on

On April 4, 2017, in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB’s”) holding that various claims of U.S. Patents 6,316,023 and 6,335,031 (“the Patents at...more

443 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 18
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

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