New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as obvious. See...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) This week’s Case of the Week mostly resolves an appeal filed five years ago, following decisions from the...more
Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more
For the first time in over five years, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be hearing a patent case en banc. The Court has agreed to hear LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, which...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of whether certain factual and legal conclusions relating to obviousness were supported by substantial evidence, held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that an accused infringer was entitled to a new trial relating to validity issues but still faced sanctions for its continuous disregard of its discovery obligations....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two district court decisions, finding that a patent owner who only partially prevailed in one of two appeals was not entitled to any additional patent term adjustments...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed, for the first time, the issue of when the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) may raise a ground of unpatentability that was not advanced by a petitioner in relation...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determination of unpatentability because the Board did not adequately support its reasoning as to certain...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit modified and re-issued its...more
Finding that a patent’s preamble was not limiting and the patent owner’s secondary considerations of non-obviousness were weak, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of obviousness by the Patent...more
Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
Main Quest: Does Your Gaming Stream Violate the Copyright Act? Streaming platforms, such as Twitch, Mixer and YouTube Gaming, are quickly becoming household names, with daily viewership rates that rival those of more...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197 to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton,...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more