With the deepening of the policy guidance on strengthening intellectual property rights protection, following the Trademark Law at the legislative level, the Civil Code introduced general provisions on punitive damages for...more
In Baffinland Iron Mines LP v. Tower-EBC G.P., S.E.N.C., the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) has confirmed that “finally settled” by arbitration means the same thing as “final and binding”, and that both phrases may...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
Given the high “abuse of discretion” standard of review, any time a discovery ruling is altered or reversed by New York’s Appellate Division, the legal community must take note. Such a decision has the potential to affect...more
On November 4, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi. Certiorari was limited to the question of whether the enablement...more
According to the Guidelines for Patent Examination, a process claim shall usually be defined in terms of technical features such as technological process, operational conditions, steps, and procedures. However, the Guidelines...more
The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., ___ F.3d __, 2020 WL 5048435 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020) construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” According to the decision: Antibody:...more
It is common for private company co-owners to have disagreements while they operate their business, but they typically work through these disputes themselves. In those rare instances where conflicts escalate and legal action...more
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. 10X GENOMICS INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Where elements of preamble are limiting,...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
The Federal Circuit has issued another opinion arising from the patent conflict between The Chamberlain Group and Techtronic Industries—and, once again, a patent owned by Chamberlain suffered a major blow. In Techtronic...more
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. ITC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: Consistent description in the specification of a particular embodiment as the...more
PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED INNOVATION AND RESEARCH V. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. Before Reyna, Newman, and Clevenger. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The patentee’s lexicography of...more
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
With the Fifth Circuit having already heard oral argument in March 2019 in All American Check Cashing’s interlocutory appeal from the district court’s ruling upholding the CFPB’s constitutionality, it is not surprising that...more
It is important for petitioners and patent owners alike to understand the implications of Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions, which relied on prosecution history and the title to limit design patent claim scope....more
The Canadian Patent Act was amended last year to include a new provision which allows prosecution histories into evidence in patent proceedings to rebut representations made by the patentee regarding claims construction. ...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
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Clevenger and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Prosecution history estoppel does not bar enforcement of a...more
Priority Claims Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference - In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Appeal Nos. 2016-2707 and 2016-2708, the Federal Circuit held that when a patent for a...more
Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Plain claim language will not be narrowed based on a patent’s specification unless the patentee clearly...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