New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more
On December 4, 2023, the Federal Court issued its public judgment and reasons in two patent infringement actions pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”) and two patent...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Design patent holders can rejoice, for now, as the Federal Circuit reinforces its stance on the invalidity of design patents based on obviousness. On January 20, 2023, the Federal Circuit upheld a decades old rule that...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MCDONALD [OPINION] (2021-1697, 8/10/2022) (Newman, Stoll, and Cunningham) - Cunningham, J. The Court affirmed a PTAB decision rejecting reissue claims under 35 U.S.C. §...more
ACI’s 8th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium returns in person to Chicago on September 21-22! Join leading pharmaceutical patent litigators for brand name and generic drug companies to receive up-to-the-minute...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
On January 6, 2021, the Federal Court issued its decision in two patent infringement actions pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations involving Teva’s patents pertaining to the...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit modified and re-issued its...more
On May 15, 2020, Manson J. of the Federal Court dismissed two actions brought by Biogen under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) alleging infringement of Patent No. 2,562,277 (277...more
Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
On October 29, 2019, the Federal Court issued its final decision under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: Janssen Inc v Apotex Inc, 2019 FC 1355. Justice Phelan granted Janssen’s...more
Main Quest: Does Your Gaming Stream Violate the Copyright Act? Streaming platforms, such as Twitch, Mixer and YouTube Gaming, are quickly becoming household names, with daily viewership rates that rival those of more...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197 to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton,...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
In the recent decision of Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit may have expanded how factual questions underpin subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101. Since the two-part eligibility...more
In an order issued on April 4, 2018, Judge Lynn granted plaintiff ZitoVault’s motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), holding that defendant IBM is estopped from asserting invalidity defenses based on prior art...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more