On July 1, 2021, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice announcing that the deadlines for comments and reply comments in response to the Media Bureau’s request that interested parties update the...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s finding of patent invalidity on the basis of obviousness, but did not reach the issue of invalidity due to...more
Case Name: Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 2014-1634, -1635, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19556 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Dyk, J.) (Appeal from D.N.J.,...more
In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Prometheus’ claims were invalid as obvious, but in so doing it cited its own precedent regarding...more
On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. 14-1634, -1635, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) affirming the district court’s decision...more
In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., a recent decision involving methods of treating a specific subset of patients, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) ruled that,...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity based on obviousness in a decision rendered in Prometheus v Roxane. In doing so, the Court might also have given an indication of the types of claims for "personalized...more
In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more
The June 12, 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit in the above case has been discussed by Kevin Noonan in his posting of 22 June, but it is believed that the factual and legal background could benefit from further discussion....more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Aptalis Pharmatech Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-01038; filed August 11, 2014 in the District Court of...more
It has been five months since the USPTO issued its Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products to aid examiners in applying the...more
Lotronex was initially launched in 2000, but was subsequently removed from the market in light of serious side effects attributed to the drug. It was re-launched in 2002 with a new label. At the time, the ’770 patent was...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken a keen interest in whether certain subject matter is eligible to be patented under U.S. law1. In June 2013, the Supreme Court held in Myriad2 that patents on naturally-occurring DNA...more
The United States Patent Office periodically issues guidance for examiners (“Examiners”), often in response to a recent court decision or new statute. These guidelines do not have the force of law, but nevertheless establish...more