News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity

Rx IP Update - July 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down "promise doctrine", upholds AstraZeneca’s NEXIUM patent as useful - As previously reported, on June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada granted AstraZeneca’s appeal in the NEXIUM...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

Federal Circuit Finds That Fetal Diagnosis Claims Survive Written Description Attacks

by Knobbe Martens on

Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2015-2011. Decided June 27, 2017. In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Federal Circuit held that claims...more

Design Patents at the PTAB?

by Jones Day on

In the wake of the high-profile dispute in Apple v. Samsung, design patent procurement and enforcement activity has increased significantly. But practitioners may not appreciate that design patent validity can be attacked...more

The STRONGER Patents Act: Swinging the Pendulum in Favor of Patent Owners

by Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

While the House Judiciary Committee conducts hearings today on "The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses," a movement is afoot in the Senate to revitalize the U.S. patent system. On June 21, 2017, a bipartisan group...more

Lack of Clarity for Reason for Denying Permanent Injunction Results in Remand

In Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., [2017-1148] (July 1-, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of a permanent injunction and remanded for reconsideration....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

Dow obtains largest Canadian patent infringement award in history

by Smart & Biggar on

The Federal Court has issued its Further Judgment and Reasons (2017 FC 637) concerning the amount of financial compensation to be paid to the Dow Chemical Company as a result of earlier patent infringement and validity...more

EP Opposition and US Inter Partes Review Decisions Go Hand In Hand

It is often desirable to obtain patent protection for inventions both in Europe and the United States. As a result, competitors frequently look to Europe and the US as important jurisdictions for challenging the validity of a...more

PTAB Invalidates Two Cisco Patents Found Valid and Infringed at the ITC

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the...more

Estoppel in CBMR is Both Reviewable and Determined on a Claim by Claim Basis

In Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, [2016-2001](June 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that Westlake was not estopped to bring a Covered Business Method Review challenge to U.S. Patent No....more

Supreme Court to Hear Another IPR Case — SAS Institute v. Lee

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in another Inter Partes Review dispute, this time in SAS Institute v. Lee. The Court will decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may properly institute partial review (i.e.,...more

How Far Is Too Far? Institution Decision to Final Written Decision

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In making a final written decision of AIA proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is not bound by findings made in an institution decision. In three recent decisions, the Federal Circuit considered the...more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. Please see full publication below for more information....more

Potential Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Review the PTAB’s Practice of Issuing Partial Final Written Decisions in...

In a case with potential wide-ranging ramifications for patent validity challenges, on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) decision, SAS Institute v....more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the PTAB Must Address All Claims Challenged in a Petition

by Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether the PTAB is required to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every claim challenged by a petitioner in SAS...more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

Merely Because Petitioner Changes its Mind is not Enough to Stop Inter Partes Reexamination

In In Re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., [2016-1830] (May 10. 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination in Inter Partes Reexamination, that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071, directed to methods...more

Why Design Patents Are Surviving Post-Grant Challenges

As of January 2017, the institution rate for Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials involving design patents was 37 percent. That is significantly lower than every other technology area and makes design patents the only...more

Federal Circuit’s Primer on Equivalence Infringement of Chemical Process Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In an appeal characterized as “unusual,” the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding it likely that plaintiff patent holder would succeed on the merits its claim of infringement of a patent...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

by Knobbe Martens on

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

PTAB Provides Another Estoppel Datapoint — No Estoppel for Petitioner Using Its Own Documents

In Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) prevents the petitioner from challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR on any “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably...more

In Helsinn Healthcare, the Federal Circuit Offers Guidance on the On-Sale Bar under the AIA

by Knobbe Martens on

The sale of a product prior to filing a patent application, or “on-sale bar,” has long been a potential barrier to obtaining a patent in the United States. Especially in the biotechnology space, which can involve a long...more

Lack of Proof That Infringement was “But For” Cause of Lost Sales or Price Erosion Defeats Permanent Injunction

In Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., [2016-1585, 2016-1618] (April 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, and 7,462,870, directed to LED...more

Willfulness Can Be Predicated on Brief Between Declaratory Judgment Filing and Counterclaim

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a complex 42-page decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed issues of assignor estoppel, claim indefiniteness, subject matter eligibility, claim preclusion, willfulness and lost profits damages...more

81 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
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.