Latest Posts › Appeals

Share:

A Private Sale Is Not Sufficient for Public Disclosure Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B)

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may...more

Relying on Computer-Implemented, Result-Focused Functional Language Is a Bad Bet

Before Dyk, Prost, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Recitations of a computer-implemented method can be an abstract idea and non-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more

Failure of ITC to Follow Its Own Rules May Constitute Harmless Error

SWAGWAY, LLC v. ITC [REVISED OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] - Before Dyk, Mayer, and Clevenger. Appeal from the International Trade Commission. Summary: Although the ITC must strictly comply with its rules, failure to do so...more

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action,...more

In Re: Durance

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Summary: Nothing in § 41.41(b)(2) bars a reply brief from addressing new arguments raised in the...more

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A distribution agreement qualifies as an invalidating “offer for sale”...more

6 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide