IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
NETFLIX, INC. v. DivX, LLC -
Before Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Petitioner was not required to explicitly identify secondary reference’s “field of endeavor” using...more
APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert...more
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion -
In Inguran, LLC Dba Stgenetics v. Abs Global, Inc., Genus Plc, Appeal No. 22-1385, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
Description Prescription -
In Regents Of The University Of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168, the Federal Circuit held that for drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus claim...more
Arthrex Again? Federal Circuit Says, “No More!” -
In Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 20-1565, the Federal Circuit held that, while the Appointments Clause requires that the USPTO Director have the power to...more
Inventor’s Testimony Regarding Actual Reduction to Practice Was Sufficiently Corroborated In Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2372, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB did not err in...more
PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC V. APPLE INC.
Before Reyna, Chen, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: The district court did not abuse its...more
Collateral Estoppel Is Applicable in IPRs When the Question of Patentability Is the Same -
In Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc. Appeal No. 21-2218, the Federal Circuit held that Google filed an IPR on...more
Restrictive Definitions Incorporated by Reference Do Not Necessarily Control for Later Patents in the Same Family -
In Finjan LLC v. Eset, LLC, Appeal No. 21-2093, the Federal Circuit held that specific definitions...more
Avoiding § 101 Eligibility Issues in Internet-Centric Method Claims -
In Weisner v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 21-2228, the Federal Circuit held that the specific implementation of an abstract idea, such as improving Internet...more
Duplicative-Litigation Doctrine: Proper Motion Practice is Essential to Avoid Dismissal of Duplicative Complaints -
In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., Appeal No. 21-1967, the Federal Circuit held that under the...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision Inc., Appeal No. 21-2037, the Federal Circuit held that, where a reference contains an “obvious” error in a disclosure, even one not immediately apparent from the face of the disclosure,...more
Claims With Clerical Errors Can Be Judicially Corrected and Willfully Infringed -
In Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Appeal No. 21-1834, the Federal Circuit held that a court can correct obvious...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR -
In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
6/20/2022
/ Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
A Construction That Eliminates the Entire Scope of Dependent Claims Should Be Avoided -
Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA Ep Corp., Appeal No. 21-2013, the Federal Circuit vacated a claim construction that violated the doctrine...more
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious -
In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
4/5/2022
/ Anticipation ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substitute Claims
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement -
In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
3/22/2022
/ Appeals ,
Binding Agreements ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Contract Terms ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Settlement Agreements
避而不谈可能支持否定性权利要求限定 -
在 Novartis Pharmaceuticals 诉 Accord Healthcare Inc. 一案（上诉案件编号：21- 1070）中，联邦巡回上诉法院认为，一项对药物“速效剂量”避而不谈的专利申请，为要求不存在此类剂量的否定 性权利要求限制提供了书面说明支持。
...more
2/10/2022
/ Claim Construction ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Novartis ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
記述がないことがクレームの否定的限定のサポートと解釈できる場合がある
Federal Circuit は、Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (Appeal No. 21-1070) に おいて、薬剤の「初回負荷用量」についての記述がない特許出願は、そのような用量がないことを要 求するクレームの否定的限定に記述によるサポートを提供していることになると判示した。
...more
2/10/2022
/ Claim Construction ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Novartis ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Silence May Support Negative Claim Limitation In Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. Appeal No. 21-1070, the...more
2/9/2022
/ Claim Construction ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Novartis ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive -
In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
1/11/2022
/ AstraZeneca ,
Generic Drugs ,
Instrinsic Evidence ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Moderna Inc. ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm
Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer -
In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more
12/9/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Apple ,
Article III ,
Biogen Idec ,
Dr. Reddy’s Labs. ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing ,
Written Descriptions