Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more
Combining Abstract Ideas Does Not Make Them Less Abstract - In Broadband Itv, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1107, the Federal Circuit held that when assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, combining two...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that a technical expert does not need to have been a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. Instead, they may rely on...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
LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION INC. Before Stoll, Cunningham, and Newman, Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a reference contains an “obvious”...more
Addressing a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision finding a § 337 violation as to one patent but no violation as to four other patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a technical...more
In the context of Immunex’s patent on IL-4 antibodies, the Federal Circuit says yes. On October 13, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “Board”) final written decision in...more
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Because a mapping technique must be performed on either a...more
Key Points - Federal Circuit issued precedential opinion in Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC that affirmed obviousness of a liquid drug patent claim, encouraging future patent challengers to raise the issue of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Appeal No. 2018-2361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s determination, holding a group of patents invalid for indefiniteness. In December 2014, HZNP Medicines LLC (“Horizon”) brought suit against Actavis Laboratories UT,...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
On May 8, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of inter partes review in William Wesley Carnes, Sr., Inc. v. Seaboard Int’l Inc., No. IPR2019-00133, holding that the mere fact that prior art references...more
Earlier this month we published an exhaustive review of the life sciences and regulatory cases in the Canadian courts, and decisions on the merits for the year are summarized in our in our Rx IP Update 2018 Highlights in...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more