In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG, the Federal Circuit held in the context of an Inter Partes Review proceeding that “[i]f the Board sua sponte identifies a patentability issue for a proposed substitute claim … it must provide...more
The judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is one of the most vexing doctrines of U.S. patent law. In Immunex Corp. v Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit added another layer of complexity to the...more
The USPTO has initiated a new pilot program for expediting ex parte appeals from examiner rejections. Under the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program, applicants can pay $400 for expedited review in which case the USPTO will...more
In Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, the Federal Circuit construed language of the Hatch-Waxman patent term extension statute in a manner Biogen argued was inconsistent with the “active moiety” focus of...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has expanded the type of relief available under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Now, priority claims can be made in certain...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has extended the period for deferring certain deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) with important modifications. The most...more
In an effort to help independent inventors and small businesses bring “important and possibly life-saving treatments” to market more quickly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing the COVID-19...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched a new platform that could expedite the development of COVID-19 related technologies. As explained in the USPTO’s press release, the Patents 4 Partnerships...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has extended the period for deferring certain deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The relief still applies only to those...more
In CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit found that the medical device claims at issue were “directed to” patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. The district court had reached the opposite...more
One of the most confusing—and frustrating—aspects of the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) rules is the mismatch between the PTA rules and the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) rules. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee,...more
Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) has introduced legislation that would delay and then extend the term of patents related to the treatment of COVID-19. The “Facilitating Innovation to Fight Coronavirus Act” also would shield health...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has now announced how it will exercise its authority under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to extend certain statutory deadlines. Unlike...more
In Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a divided panel of the Federal Circuit found claims directed to methods of preparing DNA samples for analysis satisfy the patent eligibility requirement of 35 USC § 101. Although...more
Reaction to the novel coronavirus—the SARS-CoV-2 virus—is changing every day as jurisdictions take measures to limit the spread of infection. Foley & Lardner LLP has formed a multi-disciplinary Coronavirus Task Force, which...more
The Federal Circuit decision in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. is a good reminder that even standard “patent lingo” can cause trouble down the line. Now that the court has denied rehearing en banc (with Judges...more
As set forth in this March 2, 2020 Federal Register Notice and effective immediately, the USPTO is going to start inquiring into petitions to revive an abandoned application, accept a delayed maintenance fee payment, or...more
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
Responding to the invitation from the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General for the United States has filed an amicus brief for the United States in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USC Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. Stakeholders...more
1/10/2020
/ Alice Corporation ,
Amicus Briefs ,
Bilski ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Solicitor General ,
Split of Authority
In Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that failed to take into account evidence of copying in its obviousness analysis. The Federal...more
We previously discussed the new personalized medicine example in the USPTO’s October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update. Here, we look at the new nature-based product example, and consider how it may impact...more
The USPTO has released additional patent eligibility guidance to supplement the guidance released in January. While much of the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update relates to claims falling under the “abstract...more
On October 17, 2019, the USPTO issued new patent subject matter eligibility guidance, the first such memo since the January 2019 guidance on 35 U.S.C. §101. The January 2019 memo described a three step, two prong procedure...more
In OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that a Tarceva® patent was invalid as obvious because the decision was not supported by a reasonable expectation of success....more
10/17/2019
/ Apotex ,
Clinical Trials ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Reasonable Expectations Test ,
Reversal
In Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO cannot charge a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) deduction for “applicant delay” during a period when the applicant “could have done nothing to...more