Federal Circuit Patent Updates, 9/26/20 – 10/12/20

WilmerHale
Contact

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

  1. ANTENNASYS, INC. v. AQYR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [OPINION] (O’Malley, Bryson, Reyna)
    O’Malley, J. Remanding to district court to address threshold issues of whether case should be dismissed for failure to name a patent’s co-owner as a plaintiff. Although not an issue of standing, the plaintiff’s failure to join another potential owner as a co-plaintiff impacted plaintiff’s ability to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for bringing an infringement suit, an issue which needed to be resolved before reaching the issue of claim construction. To the extent the district court concluded that plaintiff’s patent infringement was not statutorily permitted, the district court had no independent jurisdiction over the state law counts in the complaint.
  2. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] (Prost, Newman, Moore)
    Newman, J. Despite carve out from drug label of indication to which patented method of administering a drug was directed, a jury could reasonable find that a generic drug manufacturer induced infringement based on defendant’s knowledge of its infringing use and promotion of its generic product as the same as the branded product. The fact that doctors already knew of the drug product and its uses was not grounds for finding lack of causation. “When the provider of an identical product knows of and markets the same product for intended direct infringing activity, the criteria of induced infringement are met.” On the issue of damages, the existence of other generic products on the market did not negate a recovery of lost profits because the other generic products were not non-infringing alternatives. Prost, J., dissented on the issue of inducement.
  3. BIOGEN MA INC. v. EMD SERONO, INC. [OPINION] (Newman, Linn, Hughes)
    Linn, J. Reversing district court’s grant of JMOL and reinstating jury’s verdict that patent directed to a recombinant interferon-β product used for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis was anticipated. The district court erred by failing to apply a product-by-process analysis to the claimed recombinant IFN-β source limitation and in requiring an identity of three-dimensional structures not specifically recited in the claims.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© WilmerHale | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

WilmerHale
Contact
more
less

WilmerHale on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.