The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
According to the Guidelines for Patent Examination, a process claim shall usually be defined in terms of technical features such as technological process, operational conditions, steps, and procedures. However, the Guidelines...more
The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., ___ F.3d __, 2020 WL 5048435 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020) construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” According to the decision: Antibody:...more
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. 10X GENOMICS INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Where elements of preamble are limiting,...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
The Federal Circuit has issued another opinion arising from the patent conflict between The Chamberlain Group and Techtronic Industries—and, once again, a patent owned by Chamberlain suffered a major blow. In Techtronic...more
PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED INNOVATION AND RESEARCH V. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. Before Reyna, Newman, and Clevenger. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The patentee’s lexicography of...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
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
The Canadian Patent Act was amended last year to include a new provision which allows prosecution histories into evidence in patent proceedings to rebut representations made by the patentee regarding claims construction. ...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Reading a process limitation into a product claim is improper where the...more
In July 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision reversing the district court for failing to provide constructions for the claim terms “replacement telephone number,” “modify...more
Addressing issues of claim construction, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s narrow construction based on a disclaimer in the specification. Openwave Systems, Inc., NKA...more
In February 2015, Advanced Marketing Systems (AMS) sued a number of defendants, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,445, 8,370,199, and 8,538,805. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on...more
Addressing the issue of whether the district court properly relied on dictionary definitions when construing a negative claim limitation that was the basis for a summary judgement of non-infringement, the U. S. Court of...more
As noted in a previous article, the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.. The per curiam order was accompanied by two separate concurring opinions, one authored by Judge Lourie...more
Colleagues in Australia have been spreading the bad news: The High Court of Australia followed the lead (?) of the U.S. Supreme Court and determined that Myriad cannot patent the isolated BRCA1 gene in Australia. Thanks to...more
In R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of R+L’s infringement claims against Qualcomm, finding that the claims issued after reexamination were not “substantially...more
In correcting the district court’s claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and remanded, finding that the claims were improperly limited...more
Traditional patent law holds that a patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of...more