In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more
2/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Failure to Obtain Advice of a Third Party Is Not Evidence of Willfulness - In Provisur Technologies, Inc., v. Weber, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1438, the Federal Circuit held that patentees cannot use an accused infringer’s failure...more
11/14/2024
/ Claim Construction ,
Damages ,
ETSI ,
FRAND ,
Infringement ,
Injunctions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
Third-Party
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
9/10/2024
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
America Invents Act ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory?
In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more
The Outcome of the PTAB’s Analysis May Determine Whether the PTAB Engaged in Claim Construction -
In Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1750, the Federal Circuit held that the outcome of the PTAB’s analysis of...more
3/5/2024
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Philip Morris ,
Prior Art
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
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
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
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 Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 21-2347, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Patent Act, an “inventor” must be a natural person. Therefore, an AI system cannot be an inventor. ...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
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
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