The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35...more
The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35...more
The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35...more
The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35...more
Amgen recently filed its Reply brief to the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi. While a conventional proportion of Amgen's Reply is directed to arguments Respondent Sanofi made in its brief, at trial, and before the Federal...more
The Supreme Court on Friday, Nov. 3, granted Amgen’s petition for certiorari on the second of the Questions Presented in its petition...more
High Court Will Tackle Proper Enablement Standard -
Constituting something of a surprise, the Supreme Court on Friday, November 3rd granted Amgen's petition for certiorari on the second of the Questions Presented in its...more
11/7/2022
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Certiorari ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose -
Judge Moore, in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC stated the obvious when she said in her dissent: My colleagues' refusal deflates the Amici's hopeful...more
In a month where the Supreme Court's conservative majority has exercised its judicial muscle by striking down several well-established precedents, one portion of their jurisprudence is as fixed a constant as the Northern...more
The Supreme Court, speaking through a five-justice majority, has reaffirmed the equitable principle of assignor estoppel while at the same time limiting its application in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. Assignor...more
Patent law is replete with arcane (and often judge-made) doctrines, such as the doctrine of equivalence and obviousness-type double patenting. In addition, long having been considered a property right (Oil States to the...more
Today, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in its consideration of American Axle's certiorari petition, which asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in American Axle & Mfg. v....more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the issue of assignor estoppel.
As a reminder, the case arose in an infringement suit over U.S. Patent Nos. 6,782,183 and...more
4/26/2021
/ America Invents Act ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Claim Construction ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) spent the better part of a decade attacking the practice of innovator drug companies settling ANDA litigation by providing payments to generic applicants challenging the validity of Orange...more
4/16/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Exclusivity ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
FTC v Actavis ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements ,
Rule-of-Reason Analysis ,
SCOTUS
The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in U.S. v. Arthrex, involving the question of whether appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) and their authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act violates the...more
3/4/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Due Process ,
Inferior Officers ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
Arthrex recently filed a(nother) certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, this time in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also been the subject of petitions from the U.S. government and Smith & Nephew. (This...more
7/20/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Congressional Intent ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine
Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly...more
7/16/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Director of the USPTO ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
USPTO
Arthrex recently filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Inc. (a case related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also the subject of petitions from the U.S. government...more
7/16/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Application of Intervening Laws ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Effective Filing Date ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Forfeiture ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Takings Clause
While the Federal Circuit's decision last fall in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. raised issues about the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it should...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
6/25/2020
/ America Invents Act ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Takings Clause
The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal...more
In the Supreme Court's recent clarifying campaign through the Federal Circuit's U.S. patent law jurisprudence, one section of the statute, 35 U.S.C. §112(a) has been noticeably left unscathed. Indeed, avoidance of this...more
6/1/2020
/ Claim Limitations ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Expert Testimony ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 112 ,
Statutory Requirements ,
Written Descriptions
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding State sovereign immunity against claims of copyright infringement.[i] The case arose over Petitioner Allen’s suit against North Carolina’s...more
3/27/2020
/ Abrogation ,
Allen v Cooper ,
Authors ,
Certiorari ,
Congressional Intent ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyright Ownership ,
Copyright Remedy Clarification Act ,
Eleventh Amendment ,
Fourteenth Amendment ,
SCOTUS ,
Sovereign Immunity