Zealous advocacy is a hallmark of adversarial proceedings, whether in district court or before the USPTO, where the opportunities for such advocacy have multiplied with the establishment by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act...more
Last November, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Guidance to the Examiner Corps that was disclosed to the public at the March 19, 2024 Biotechnology, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical Partnership Meeting, on resources to...more
6/11/2024
/ Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Drug Pricing ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Labeling ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
USPTO
Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Cardiovalve Ltd....more
Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more
Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in...more
The importance of claim construction, and how construing the same term facing a challenge based on different prior art in separate inter partes review proceedings can result in contrary findings on invalidity, was illustrated...more
One of the many changes introduced into U.S. patent law by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were provisions for post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR). There have been thousands of these proceedings...more
1/8/2024
/ America Invents Act ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Noncompliance ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Opioid ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP
Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more
12/8/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Entitlements ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Nonobvious ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
In what was an otherwise run-of-the-mill affirmance of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (albeit somewhat noteworthy in affirming the Board's determination that the challenged claims were not invalid),...more
In its contingent cross-appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) adverse decision on priority against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier...more
In its appeal from an adverse decision on priority by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Interference No. 106,115 (directed to CRISPR-mediated gene editing), Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the...more
One of the many criticisms of the post-grant review proceedings instituted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, both post-grant review (PGR) available within 9 months of patent grant based on all provisions of the Patent...more
The Federal Circuit reviewed the latest decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims 3-6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,548,019 are obvious, in Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere,...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has benefited, particularly after enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, from the deference to its factual findings mandated by the Supreme Court's interpretation in...more
Two amici have filed briefs in support of the appeal by Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") of the decision by the Patent Trial and...more
One of the wonderful (as in, it makes one wonder) and frustrating (which needs no explanation) aspects of patent law is that just when you think a question is settled it either isn't or the conventional interpretation is...more
The decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in favor of Senior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, "Broad") and against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the...more
In addition to his efforts regarding patent subject matter eligibility law (see "Senate Bill Proposed to Provide Subject Matter Eligibility Solution", co-sponsored with Senator Tillis), Senator Coons, joined by Senators...more
The Federal Circuit provided a reminder last week that merely identifying an unappreciated consequence of a prior art method cannot confer non-obviousness on practice of methods that did not acknowledge that consequence, in...more
"This application claims priority to [properly identified earlier-filed application, the disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein in its entirety" is a phrase commonly found in patents and patent applications as...more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi last week in an extended session with argument from the parties and the U.S. government. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey Lamken, Respondents by Paul Clement, and...more
The Supreme Court's (re)consideration of the enablement requirement expected in its decision later this year in Amgen v. Sanofi may be the most closely watched patent case since AMP v. Myriad Genetics. But in a decision...more
Sanofi and Regeneron filed their brief at the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi, in which Amgen seeks to have the Court overturn the District Court's grant of JMOL in the issue of whether Amgen's claims were invalid for...more
Facing what is likely to be something of an uphill battle in seeking to have the Federal Circuit's decision against it in Amgen v Sanofi overturned before a not always patent-friendly Supreme Court, Amgen in late December...more
On December 14th*, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered its decision on Preliminary Motions in Interference No. 106,133 between Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich and Junior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and...more