Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 2019-1527, (Fed. Cir. Aug 27, 2020) - In an appeal from the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Plager, and Wallach) vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment...more
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC v. WILLOWOOD, LLC - Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Summary: Infringement under § 271(g) does not require a...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to Teva’s bortezomib product (Janssen markets bortezomib as...more
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. TCL CORPORATION - Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Publications shelved in publicly accessible libraries may be publicly...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Reading a process limitation into a product claim is improper where the...more
On February 8, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal issued public reasons for its decision dismissing Teva’s appeal relating to the damages and costs awarded against it for its infringement of Janssen’s patent for levofloxacin...more
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
On November 3, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC1, a rare precedential opinion reversing a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review proceeding. This is...more
[A] finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages. On December 19, 2012, in Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech....more
[W]e have emphatically rejected any formal burden-shifting framework in evaluating the four Graham factors [including the objective considerations of nonobviousness]. The district court's failure to consider the evidence...more