Acuitas Therapeutics Inc. (“Acuitas”) filed a complaint (1-24-cv-00816) on July 12 against Alnylam Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Alnylam”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging incorrect inventorship of...more
In Hip, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, held that there was no joint inventorship when the contribution of preheating meat pieces using an infrared oven was insignificant in quality...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to correct inventorship in a post-issuance inventorship dispute, finding that the alleged joint inventors’ contributions were significant...more
Addressing an issue of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that two medications that contain the same ingredients but are packaged in different forms constitute separate markets for...more
This case addresses the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie case to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Background - Hormel Foods appealed the District Court’s ruling that David Howard should be...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to correct inventorship, finding that the alleged joint inventor’s contribution to a claimed invention was significant and adequately corroborated by...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued another precedential decision on inventorship. However, unlike in HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation (22-1696) where the appellate panel found the purported inventor’s contribution to...more
There is the old adage in business: to go fast, go alone; and to go far, go together. When this applies to innovation and naming co-inventors in your patent application, it is important to understand the legal ramification...more
This week’s bacon-related case of the week may lack a certain recognizable savory smell, but it still manages to pack some helpful insights on the law of joint inventorship. Case of the (recent) week: HIP, Inc. v. Hormel...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - HIP, INC. v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION (2022-1696, 5/2/23) (Lourie, Clevenger, and Taranto) Lourie, J. The Court reversed the district court’s decision regarding joint...more
This week, the Federal Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s (“District Court”) decision to add David Howard as a joint inventor on Hormel Food Corporation’s (“Hormel”) U.S. Patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision and found that an asserted inventor not named in the application was not a joint inventor because in the context of the entire invention his...more
Efforts by HIP, Inc. to have David Howard added as an inventor to Hormel’s U.S. Patent No. 9,980,498 (Bacon Patent) were recently scorched by the Federal Circuit. More specifically, in HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation...more
HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023) In its only precedential patent opinion this week, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court determination that David Howard should be...more
Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) interference decision finding that priority belonged to the junior party based on sufficiently corroborated reduction to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, citing a dispute as to material facts, held that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that an alleged joint inventor failed to sufficiently contribute to inventing the...more
The consequences of joint development agreements, particularly under circumstances where later development is pursued independently by the parties, can create, inter alia, allegations of improper ownership and infringement if...more
Today’s big news in the patent world is probably the CVSG in American Axle and the potential for a new Supreme Court case on subject-matter eligibility. But the day-to-day work goes on at the Federal Circuit, including with...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for N.D. Ohio. Summary: On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court cannot judicially notice facts that are subject to...more
In a combined opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed appeals from district court grants of summary judgment over two patents, and an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that one of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. and IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-1205, -1360 (Fed. Cir. January 31, 2019) - The Court this week provided a...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. introduced even more confusion in an already confusing area of the law – namely obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting...more
On July 22, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a long standing patent infringement suit brought by StemCells, Inc. against Neuralstem, Inc., on the ground that all those with an ownership...more