In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-2217, 2023-1021 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent case this week, the Court considered questions...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757) on Monday, March 27, 2023. The highly contentious question before the high court focuses what an applicant must show to meet the enablement...more
Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision for relying on an incorrect standard for indefiniteness. (Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc). Now, in...more
On January 3, 2021, The Federal Circuit held in a 2-1 decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) that the claims of Novartis’ U.S. Pat. No. 9,187,405 (“the ’405 patent”) met the...more
An en banc rehearing petition to the Federal Circuit seeks to breathe life back into the widespread practice of patenting a genus of compounds by claiming their common functional characteristics. This claiming practice was...more
Inventors are generally counseled to file a patent application as soon as they have a patentable invention to avoid potential forfeiture of important rights in today’s first inventor-to-file system. However,...more
On January 6, 2021, US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Andrei Iancu, Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld and Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick issued a memorandum to the members of the Patent...more
On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in IQASR v. Wendt, found that a district court did not err in its scrutiny of the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence presented to find U.S. Patent No....more
Patent eligibility is a bit of a mess these days. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Alice v. CLS Bank decision six years ago, the distinction between what might be subject matter that can be patented and what is...more
Applying the US Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS framework, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding patent claims directed to data management and processing systems...more
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP. Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may not cancel claims on the...more
In its recent decision, Fiber, LLC. v. Ciena Corp., No. 2019-1005 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a reminder that the structure necessary to satisfy the...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
In In re Global IP Holdings LLC, decided July 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit found the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decision, which found the reissue claims unpatentable under the written description...more
An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more
Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been effective tools for defendants to obtain early dismissal of a case without extensive fact finding since the Supreme Court ruling in Alice. Whether a claim recites...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...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
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Summary: Evidence intrinsic to a patent may be sufficient to overcome the presumption...more
...In a recent (and rare) precedential decision, the Board reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus does not change “the USPTO’s long-standing approach to indefiniteness” in the context of pre-issuance...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err in its conclusions that a claim element reciting “means” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 and that the challenged claims...more
Addressing claim indefiniteness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim term “virtually free from interference” was sufficiently definite to pass § 112 muster. One-E-Way, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,...more