New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
In Allergan USA, Inc. et al., v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision relating to obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) and...more
One of the anticipated consequences of the Supreme Court's Loper decision is that it will unleash judges to impose their statutory interpretations of administrative agencies' applications of the law within their areas of...more
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An expert witness can testify from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention even if they...more
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024) - On August 13, 2024, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision that a patent was invalid for obviousness-type double...more
Addressing invalidity due to obvious-type double patenting (ODP) based on later-filed-related patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s application of In re Cellect (Fed. Cir. 2023)...more
Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Addresses Waiver of Argument Not Raised in Request for...more
Takeaways: 1. ODP in reexamination and reissue remains unpredictable despite Allergan 2. Patent Owners should carefully review ODP rejections to ensure they are proper Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a legal...more
On August 13, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Allergan v. MSN that “a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim” cannot be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) “by a...more
In Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, that later-filed, later-issued claims cannot serve as proper reference for invalidating earlier-filed, earlier-issued claims having the same...more
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories (Case No. 24-1061). This decision reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re:...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit surprised many observers of patent law in In re Cellect LLC, 81 F.4th 1216, 1228–29 (Fed. Cir. 2023) when—for the first time—it affirmed a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office decision cancelling an...more
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...more
The recent In re Cellect decision by the Federal Circuit1 is significant for patent owners who have obtained patent-term adjusted patents in the same patent family. The court held that term-adjusted patents can be potentially...more
On August 13, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a welcomed decision to patentees in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. 2024) clarifying the scope of...more
A later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring child patent cannot be used as an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) reference against its first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring parent patent having a common priority...more
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC, Nos. 2022-1905, 2022-1970 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2024) addressed several issues, including: (1) what evidence of litigation misconduct may support a...more
In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the case addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits...more
This decision emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B)....more
Kilpatrick partners Megan Bussey, Nicki Kennedy, and Michael Bertelson recently presented at the 20th annual KTIPS (Kilpatrick Townsend Intellectual Property Seminar) on the topic of “A New Era Dawns for Design Patent...more
Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings. In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Andy...more
Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Aug. 1, 2024). Opinion by Chen, joined by Lourie and Cunningham. Unified filed an IPR petition challenging a Voice Tech patent directed to using voice...more
Addressing forfeiture of issues on appeal and sufficiency of the asserted prior art, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, explaining that a party does not...more