In view of the Supreme Court's "long conference" on September 30th, it seems timely to review the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re...more
10/7/2024
/ Amicus Briefs ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Terms ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Proposed Rules ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
In view of the Supreme Court's "long conference" on September 30th, it seems timely to review the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re...more
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, federal courts (including the Federal Circuit) are compelled under the Administrative Procedures Act to review factual determinations by the U.S. Patent and...more
One of the anticipated consequences of the Supreme Court's Loper decision is that it will unleash judges to impose their statutory interpretations of administrative agencies' applications of the law within their areas of...more
As posted in July, the Special Committee of the Federal Circuit voted unanimously to maintain the suspension imposed on Judge Pauline Newman (see "Judge Newman Suspended for One Year by Federal Circuit") for another year. On...more
It has been one of Justice Gorsuch's signature judicial goals to overturn the Court's Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision and while it has taken seven years for a case to arise giving him...more
In addition to Justice Gorsuch's concurrence (to be discussed in a later post), the three "liberal" Justices on the Court differed from their colleagues and thought overturning the Chevron precedent to be both erroneous and...more
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court overturned the "Chevron deference" principle from its 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (and it did so...more
A consequence (predominantly negative) of the Supreme Court's recent foray into defining (however inadequately) the contours of patent-eligible subject matter is to give the district courts (and to a somewhat lesser extent,...more
One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de...more
On January 10th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a Notice in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 1563) regarding proposed Guidance on how the Office will apply the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)...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
Proper construction of claim limitations reciting the chemical property of pH (which denotes the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution as an indication of acidity) has arisen several times in district court and Federal...more
12/8/2023
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Innovation Patent ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva v Sandoz
In view of the unprecedented uncertainty in patent law generated by counter-doctrinal Supreme Court decisions over the past decade or so and a cowed Federal Circuit relegated to complaining that their hands are tied on most...more
Section 112 of the patent statute, which in earlier years was something of a backwater in patent law, has had a tumultuous quarter century beginning with the Federal Circuit decision in Regents of the University of California...more
In those (in retrospect) halcyon days more than a decade ago (before Mayo, Myriad, Alice, and the subject matter eligibility quagmire arose), perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision was KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex...more
It is not surprising that the Federal Circuit has taken the opportunity to apply the Supreme Court's recent precedent in Amgen v. Sanofi regarding the sufficiency of disclosure needed to satisfy the statutory enablement...more
Einstein's aphorism that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a hallmark of madness (or at least an inability to learn from the past) inevitably comes to mind when perusing the recent...more
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Amgen v. Sanofi today. In Justice Gorsuch’s unanimous opinion, the Court held that the scope of the claims at issue were much broader than the 26 expressly disclosed antibodies....more
5/19/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Amgen v. Sanofi today. In Justice Gorsuch’s unanimous opinion, the Court held that the scope of the claims at issue were much broader than the 26 expressly disclosed antibodies....more
Today, the Supreme Court again disregarded the views of the Federal government regarding whether to grant certiorari, here in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, and in some ways the only positive outcome is that...more
The Supreme Court's consideration of the standards for satisfying the enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been occasioned for the first time in over a century by the Court's granting certiorari in Amgen v....more
The Solicitor General, responding to a call from the Supreme Court for the government’s views, in April filed a brief directed to the proper legal standard for the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under 35...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 heard oral arguments in Amgen v. Sanofi yesterday in an extended session with arguments from the parties and the U.S. government. The Justices showed a great deal of interest, albeit with some difficulty,...more