Late last week in Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (24-1324), the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction ruling from the lower court that mostly prohibits NeoGenomics from selling its oncology test...more
The questions from the high court during oral argument at the end of March 2023 were fairly telling of the 9-0 ruling that came down yesterday in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757). In fact, it did not come as much of a...more
5/19/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Judicial Proceedings ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 112
Bot M8 LLC, a patent assertion entity, was unsuccessful in its effort to have the Federal Circuit reverse the lower court’s invalidity finding related to one of six different patents asserted against Sony in Northern District...more
Contrary to some predictions, assignor estoppel did not suffer the same fate in the hands of the Supreme Court as licensee estoppel in Lear v. Adkins. In fact, the doctrine, which essentially boils down to limiting an...more
Last spring in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., the Federal Circuit ruled that the doctrine of assignor estoppel does not prevent an assignor from lodging a validity challenge of either patent in an IPR proceeding. In...more
Assignor estoppel is “an equitable doctrine that prevents one who has assigned the rights to a patent (or patent application) from later contending that what was assigned is a nullity.” Makes sense, right? After all, an...more
On Thursday of last week in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corporation, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions (IPR2015-01584 and IPR2015-01600) finding that a single claim in...more
11/14/2019
/ Appeals ,
Declaration ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Public Information ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Supplemental Evidence
As discussed in a previous blog post, since Mayo v. Prometheus, critics of medical treatment patents have advocated that such patents should be banned from patenting. While such arguments seemed futile based on the consistent...more
9/3/2019
/ CAFC ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Myriad-Mayo ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Treatment Method Patents
In a precedential decision delivered this week, the Federal Circuit shot down arguments from Appellants BTG International Limited; Janssen Biotech, Inc.; Janssen Oncology, Inc.; and Janssen Research & Development, LLC (BTG),...more
5/17/2019
/ Appeals ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Generic Drugs ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
On October 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it will issue a final rule changing the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant...more
10/16/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Final Rules ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Phillips Standard ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
Appealed PTAB decisions are generally accorded a deferential “substantial evidence” standard by the Federal Circuit. However, this deference did not prevent Ericsson from prevailing in its appeal to the Federal Circuit to...more
6/1/2018
/ Determination on Remand ,
Ericsson ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
Split of Authority ,
Substantial Evidence
On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that invalidated a number of claims in a Smith & Nephew, Inc. patent during inter partes reexamination. While many of Smith &...more
2/2/2018
/ Appeals ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reversal