Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more
7/17/2023
/ Amgen ,
Amgen v Sanofi ,
Chemicals ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Functional Claim Language ,
Genus ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
6/27/2023
/ Amgen v Sanofi ,
CAFC ,
Genus ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS
Dear Patenticity,
We recently found that an out-of-state competitor is infringing one of our patents. I know we need to put a stop to it, but I’m worried about the cease-and-desist letter. I heard that there was a recent...more
Cosmokey v. Duo Security is more about the Federal Circuit than the patented authentication method accused of being a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The court’s analysis is remarkable for at least two reasons. It skipped...more
Can an employee’s unpatentable “idea”, conceived under a duty to assign intellectual property, give rise to co-ownership in an invention conceived after employment terminates? That was the question on appeal in Bio-Rad...more
10/11/2021
/ Appeals ,
Co-Ownership ,
Employees ,
Former Employee ,
Infringement ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The Federal Circuit in Lubby Holdings v. Chung overturned a jury verdict finding that Lubby satisfied Sec. 287(a)’s requirement to notify Chung of his infringement. Was this reversible error, or has the court determined that...more
Inequitable conduct is an affirmative defense to patent infringement, but the bar for proving it is a high one. A defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patentee intentionally deceived the Patent...more
The Supreme Court clarified the doctrine of assignor estoppel in its June 29th Minerva v. Hologic opinion. In doing so, the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s opinion estopping Minerva from arguing that Hologic’s patent is...more
If you do not know the difference between patentability and freedom-to-operate (FTO), you are not alone. Most often people mistakenly believe that a patent gives them the right to make, use, and sell an invention. Not so. A...more