News & Analysis as of

Playing Fast and Loose With Corroborating Evidence: Patent Advocacy Inequitable Conduct

Patent litigation often involves the assertion of prior art anticipation and obviousness defenses. U.S. patents are presumed valid, so a defendant seeking to overcome this presumption must persuade the fact-finder of a...more

Old Compound + Known Purpose + Prior Art Concentrations = Obvious -- Galderma Labs L.P., et al v. Tolmar, Inc.

In a split panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court concluding that the claims at issue were invalid as obvious because they were directed to the use of an old compound for a...more

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

When does a prior art disclosure of a concentration range of a medicament render obvious the use of a species that falls within that range, when that same use was also known in the prior art? After all, common sense should...more

Hindsight and Teaching Away Arguments Fall Short in Decision to Initiate IPR Trial

In a short decision, Fellowes was able to get 16 challenged claims of a Speculative Product Design patent into a trial for inter partes review, in a case styled as Fellowes, Inc. v. Speculative Product Design, LLC...more

Federal Circuit Invalidates Galderma Differin Patents

In Galderma Laboratories v. Tolmar, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s findings that the Orange Book-listed patents for Galderma’s Differin® 0.3% gel product were not invalid as obvious. In so doing, the...more

Goodlatte Proposes an Obviousness Type Double Patenting Statute

One of the provisions of the Innovation Act introduced by Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) on October 23, 2014, purports to codify the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for applications and patents examined under the...more

Unwired Planet v. Google: Court Reverses Decision Limiting Google to Prior Art References

Unwired Planet LLC ("Unwired Planet") filed a patent infringement action against Google and it originally identified 124 claims from ten patents as its asserted claims against Google. Unwired subsequently reduced the number...more

Rebutting a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness

Obtaining a patent for an invention requires the crossing of many statutory hurdles. One of the main statutory hurdles is to rebut any contentions by a patent examiner that an invention may be obvious (i.e., rebutting a...more

Federal Circuit Addresses Design Patent Invalidity Standards

Practitioners working in the area of design patent litigation should take note of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., No. 2012-1455 (Sept. 11, 2013), which provides guidance...more

Federal Circuit Finds Taclonex Patent Not Obvious, Reverses USPTO Decision

In Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Lt. v. Rae, the Federal Circuit issued a rare decision reversing an obviousness determination by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Apple, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors -- including objective evidence of secondary considerations -- must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.

Where a court holds a claim obvious without making findings of secondary considerations, the lack of specific consideration of secondary considerations ordinarily requires a remand....more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 7, July 2013

“Reverse Payment” Settlements Face Greater Antitrust Scrutiny Following U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in FTC v. Actavis: Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. - Resolving a split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the...more

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

Decision Date: January 31, 2013 - Court: N.D. Ohio - Patents: D634,488 and D634,487 - Holding: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity GRANTED - Opinion: Plaintiff MRC Innovations,...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 5 - May 2013

In This Issue: • Patent Office Must Prove Prior Art Reference Is Enabling • Complaint Was Adequate Despite Non-Infringing Possibilities • FDA Approval Not Relevant to Obviousness Analysis - Excerpt from...more

Patent Watch: Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.

Expert testimony [may be] required not only to explain what the prior art references disclosed, but also to show that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine them in order to achieve the claimed...more

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising The Bar) Act 2012: Amendments Relevant To Validity (Updated 15 April 2013)

The following section will discuss: - Written description and enablement, amendment - Obviousness - Usefulness....more

AIA Impact on Start Up Capital [Video]

An important consideration following the implementation of the America Invents Act is how will the law will affect capital raises for critical start-ups and emerging companies. In this video, Robert Greene Sterne, a founding...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

USPTO Finalizes "First Inventor to File" Rules

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) finalized the rules of practice implementing the "first inventor to file" provision of the America Invents Act (AIA). The rules take effect March 16, 2013. The "first...more

NZ Patent Oppositions – Why Do I Need Expert Evidence?

In our continuing series of articles on New Zealand patent oppositions, we look at the topic of expert evidence and why it is critical to establishing obviousness....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

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

News from Abroad: Speculation Invalidates Invention?

Originally published in Forresters on December 23, 2012. Over the past few years the UK patents courts have moved closer to the approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) on inventive step. In particular, the UK...more

24 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1