News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art

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

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

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

Diagnostic and Personalized Medicine Claims — Strategies for Navigating the §101 Minefield

In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostic LLC, the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealt another blow to the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods and the growing field of personalized medicine....more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...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

Known Solution to General Problem Provides Sufficient Motivation to Modify Prior Art

by Jones Day on

In a final written decision in Bass, et al., v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (IPR2016-00254), the PTAB found that the challenged claims of Fresenius’s U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010, directed to a sterile pharmaceutical composition of...more

PTAB Discretion, Petitions Reliant on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In three recent cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressed arguments pertaining to when and how it should exercise its discretion to deny some or all grounds for unpatentability in an inter partes review (IPR)...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 United States Patent Office Totally Rejected Your Claims? Don't Panic!

by Ward and Smith, P.A. on

In my almost 17 years of practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), by far the most common telephone call I receive from inventors is a frantic inquiry about an Office Action received from the PTO...more

PTAB Free to Adopt Claim Constructions Independent of Party Contentions

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may arrive at its own claim broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) independent of those proffered by the parties and...more

PTAB Grants-in-Part Rare Motion to Amend Based on Unexpected Results

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB granted-in-part a patent owner’s motion to substitute claims based on evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Technologies, AG & CO. KG, IPR2016-00502, Paper...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

“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

Evidence of Unexpected Results Key to Grant of Substitute Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceeding

In Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Tech. AG & CO. KG, after finding that all original claims of the patent were unpatentable during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted,...more

Be Careful Basing Your IPR On Previously Considered Prior Art

by Jones Day on

It is not always possible for a party seeking to challenge a patent in an IPR to find prior art patents or printed publications that the USPTO has not already considered. Often the best available prior art comes from the...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

PTAB Denies Timely, Relevant Supplement to Petition

by Jones Day on

By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...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

In Fight Over Recombinant Blood Clotting Factor, PTAB Denies Motion to Submit Supplemental Information

In a case that highlights the importance for petitioners to conduct a thorough prior art search and to anticipate patent owner’s arguments, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. §...more

Pumping Up Exceptional Cases Under the Octane Fitness Standard

A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more

633 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 26
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.