There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
5/2/2024
/ Apotex ,
Clinical Trials ,
Inventions ,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
With only two precedential IP decisions coming down from the Federal Circuit in the second half of September, pickings were a little slim for blogging. That said, the opinion in Baxalta v. Genentech (2022-1461) — drafted by...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
As a follow up to our post last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757). While we obviously don’t have a crystal ball, the questions from the high court suggest that Amgen’s claims...more
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757) on Monday, March 27, 2023. The highly contentious question before the high court focuses what an applicant must show to meet the enablement...more
3/24/2023
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Innovation Patent ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 112 ,
Written Descriptions
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
The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the...more
10/21/2019
/ Claim Construction ,
Definiteness ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Novelty ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 112
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding that the government is a “person” eligible to petition for post-issuance AIA review proceedings. This 6-3 decision, Return Mail, Inc....more
6/14/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
America Invents Act ,
Congressional Intent ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Government Entities ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPS
In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court on Friday held that WesternGeco is entitled to lost profits resulting from the infringing export from the U.S. of components of a patented system assembled and sold...more
6/27/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation