The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms...more
The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that...more
In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead,...more
The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the...more
In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the...more
A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the...more
In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit...more
Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using...more
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that...more
The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same...more
The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is...more
In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit...more
2/14/2025
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Claim Construction ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 112 ,
Written Descriptions
The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement. ...more
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the...more
1/20/2025
/ Biotechnology ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Life Sciences ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Safe Harbors
The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal...more
The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously...more
In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed an ITC holding that the AIA’s § 102 on-sale bar applies to the sale of a product made according to a secret process when that sale occurs more than one year before the patent’s effective...more
In a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP),...more
In an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held that by presenting cumulative financial data across different products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant provided insufficient evidence for a...more