News & Analysis as of

Safe Harbors Obviousness

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

In Wake of In re Cellect, District Court Interprets Safe Harbor Statute and Finds Patent Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double...

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Self-Help CIP Doesn’t Give Rise to § 121 Safe Harbor

Addressing whether patent holders can use the 35 USC § 121 safe harbor on a self-help basis to avoid obviousness-type double patenting, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Benesch

Federal Circuit Confirms That Continuation Patent Type May Not Be Retroactively Altered to Invoke Safe Harbor Provision

Benesch on

In In re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that, for the purposes of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121, a patent owner of a...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2013

Knobbe Martens on

Late Payment of Patent Maintenance Fees Not Inequitable Conduct - In Network Signatures Inc, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Appeal No. 12-1492, The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of...more

5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide