Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
The January 29, 2020, Federal Circuit decision in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., is a non-precedential decision that was issued on the briefs (without oral argument), but is worth reviewing for...more
Key Points - Federal Circuit issued precedential opinion in Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC that affirmed obviousness of a liquid drug patent claim, encouraging future patent challengers to raise the issue of...more
HOSPIRA, INC. V. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Summary: Evidence of the properties of claimed embodiments may be...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
On a second appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that a patent directed to creating a...more
Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to demonstrate inherency. Instead,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599 (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2019 - In a second appeal in this inter partes review matter, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding of...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that two patents listed in the Orange Book for Aveed® had not been shown to be obvious. Although prior art...more
Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more
In prior blog postings, we have commented on PTAB decisions regarding the standards for demonstrating inherent obviousness. Practitioners should also be aware of a recent Federal Circuit decision clarifying the test is...more
Despite an error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) in relying on inherency to render an obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision, finding...more
In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more
Intercontinental v. Kellogg involves a fight between two food industry powerhouses, Kraft and Kellogg, in which a majority of the panel affirms summary judgment of obviousness of a patent directed to a resealable cookie...more
A patent claim can be rejected for inherency over a reference. An inherent property cannot be claimed, even if that property was not known at the time a prior art composition was disclosed or prior art invention was made....more
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops against obviousness, written...more
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops. This decision shows that it is still...more
The patent statute makes it clear that subject matter that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of a patent application is not patentable.[1] The considerations relevant...more