In post-grant proceedings since 2018, the PTAB has applied the same claim construction standard as used in district court; a recent Memorandum confirms the PTAB will likewise apply the same standard that district courts use...more
The Federal Circuit has spent the past few years applying the Supreme Court's most recent precedent, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., on the indefiniteness standards in the patent statute. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...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
Under the U.S. Patent laws, claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim what the inventor understands her invention to be. Up until three years ago, the inquiry for determining indefiniteness was to ask whether...more
...In a recent (and rare) precedential decision, the Board reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus does not change “the USPTO’s long-standing approach to indefiniteness” in the context of pre-issuance...more
Applying the Supreme Court of the United States’ new indefiniteness standard from Nautilus v. Biosig, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held three claim terms in a patent on a stabilized, opthalmic...more
Clarifying the application of the indefiniteness standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s Nautilus case, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc...more
In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., 803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit directly acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120...more
In early 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard of review for patent claim construction with its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (Teva I). Previously, the U.S. Court of...more
Addressing the post-Nautilus indefiniteness standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding that the claims-at-issue are not indefinite and similarly reversed an associated order granting...more
In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims reciting a limitation that could be calculated in several ways indefinite where the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history failed to...more
Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more
It has been a little more than a year since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Nautilus, lowering the standard for finding patent claim terms indefinite. Many commentators at that time predicted the decision would...more
The More Things Change (Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America), the More They Stay the Same (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.) - On June 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit handed down...more
In an opinion addressing the standard for indefiniteness in view of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2014 “reasonable certainty” test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit maintained its reversal of the...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Subjective Term Not Indefinite when Intrinsic Record Provides Reasonably Certain Scope - On remand from the Supreme Court, on April 27, 2015, the Federal Circuit reassessed whether...more
Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (No. 2012-1289, 4/27/15) (Newman, Schall, Wallach) - April 27, 2015 11:12 AM. Wallach, J. On remand from the Supreme Court, reversing district court summary judgment...more
In its decision on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit once again held the Biosig patent claims not indefinite, reversing the district court decision to the contrary. The decision came in Biosig Instruments,...more
The Federal Circuit considered the question of indefiniteness on remand from the Supreme Court's reversal in Nautilus v. Biosig and, perhaps not surprisingly, found again that the Biosig's claims were not indefinite....more
Congress v SCtPatent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S....more
In 1982, the U.S. congress formed a new specialised appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or “CAFC,” and transferred responsibility for patent appeals from the various regional courts of appeal to this...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9 (Fed. Cir....more