For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....more
4/23/2024
/ America Invents Act ,
Decision-Making Process ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Graham Factors ,
Guidance Update ,
Inventions ,
New Guidance ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released new training materials on “Declaration practice under 37 CFR 1.132 (Rule 132).” The materials were developed under a collaboration initiative with the U.S. Food and...more
When Dynamic Drinkware was decided in 2015, commentators debated whether differences in the language of the American Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 USC § 102 would shield AIA patents from its restrictions. Now, U.S. Patent...more
In UCB Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement of invalidity on obviousness grounds but reversed the finding of anticipation. In reaching its decision on anticipation,...more
Without naming names or technology, I wanted to share an interesting rationale for obviousness I came across recently. The rejection was an “obvious to try” type rejection, based on the assertion that it would have been...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The January 29, 2020, Federal Circuit decision in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., is a non-precedential decision that was issued on the briefs (without oral argument), but is worth reviewing for...more
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
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
The claim construction determinations in Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. V. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. may leave stakeholders in the pharmaceutical space scratching their heads, and highlights that it’s rarely possible to...more
I previously wrote about the standing issue addressed in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals v. UCB Pharma GMBH. In this article, I look at the lead compound analysis that led the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the...more
In an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more
In an October 25, 2018 Federal Register Notice, the USPTO announced staged implementation of the first phase of an initiative aimed at “leveraging electronic resources to retrieve information” of record in one patent...more
In In re Copaxone Consolidated Cases, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision finding four patents directed to a specific dosing regimen for using COPAXONE® 40 mg/ml to treat patients with relapsing multiple...more
The Federal Circuit decision in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. addressed several aspects of obviousness doctrine. We previously wrote about the impact of a blocking patent on consideration of objective...more
In Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that held nucleotide primer claims and detection...more
10/12/2018
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Summary Judgment ,
USPTO
In E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had upheld Synvina’s chemical process patent against an obviousness challenge...more
Petitioners in Inter Partes Review proceedings have looked beyond typical patent and scientific literature to find a “printed publication” that might invalidate a patent. This has given the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated seven Orange Book-listed patents for Xyrem®. The main issue on...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
7/26/2018
/ CAFC ,
Inherency ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Public Use ,
Section 103
In Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court decision finding that defendants had failed to establish obviousness of AstraZeneca’s Zomig patents (directed to intranasal...more
The Federal Circuit decision in In re Durance is a rare precedential decision in an ex parte appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision rejecting a pending patent application. The Court took the USPTO to task...more
6/27/2018
/ Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Inventions ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
USPTO
In Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd., the Federal Circuit found that the printed matter doctrine applies equally to physically embodied information and mental steps, and can be invoked in the...more
5/29/2018
/ Claim Limitations ,
Evidence ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Printed Matter Doctrine ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103
In the non-precedential decision issued in Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Judge Moore considered the time and money it took to develop the invention at issue when deciding that the claims satisfy the patent eligibility...more
In Genzyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision upholding Genzyme’s Orange Book listed patent for the cancer drug Mozobil® against an obviousness challenge, because the...more
A few weeks ago I joined Kathleen Fonda, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Legal Advisor in the USPTO’s Office of Patent Legal Administration, and Gary Ganzi, J.D., Senior Counsel and Head of Intellectual Property for Evoqua Water...more