A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that cancellation of independent claims in an inter partes review (IPR) did not preclude the plaintiff from asserting infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents...more
Case Name: Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharms., Ltd., Civ. No. 20-1373-LPS (D. Del. July 13, 2021) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Aczone® Gel, 7.5% (Dapsone); U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219 (“the ’219 patent”)...more
After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court...more
Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in a number of cases over the last few years. Briefly, the judicially created doctrine of equivalents is intended to expose those who adopt the...more
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (as a basis of a successful cause of action having renewed vigor before the Federal Circuit recently (see, e.g., "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC") is...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit has taken up issues relating to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) and a related doctrine, prosecution history estoppel (PHE), that limits the scope of equivalents that can be...more
Amgen, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC et al - Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An examiner amendment may give rise to prosecution history...more
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
Addressing an infringement determination under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the “tangential relation” exception to the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal based on the defendant’s failure to state a claim motion, concluding that under principles of prosecution history estoppel, the patent owner could not...more
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: A narrowing claim amendment does not necessarily surrender all...more
On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2126, 2127, 2128, reversed in-part and affirmed in-part a district court’s determination of...more
The Federal Circuit in Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc. affirmed a district court decision that once certain subject matter is clearly and unmistakably surrendered during prosecution, the patentee is barred from...more
While design patents follow many of the same rules as utility patents, the application of those rules in determining design patent infringement can be less than straightforward. But a recent Initial Determination by ALJ...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision barring Amgen from asserting an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents against Coherus Biosciences because Amgen disclaimed all combinations not identified...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
The decision whether to issue a Restriction Requirement during patent prosecution lies with the patent examiner, not the patent applicant. A Restriction Requirement can nevertheless trigger prosecution history estoppel that...more
Addressing the intersection of claim scope and prosecution history estoppel for design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that prosecution history estoppel does not preclude enforcing a broader...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd., Appeal No. 2017-1828 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018) The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review, holding that, although JTEKT...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Clevenger and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Prosecution history estoppel does not bar enforcement of a...more
Patent practitioners are probably well familiar with circumstances in which prosecution history estoppel can limit the scope of a U.S. utility patent’s claims. Examples include claim amendments and statements made by the...more