New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
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
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
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Summary judgment, while clearly advantageous, requires that there be no disputed question of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a district court grants judgment...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
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, patent applicants (and with the advent of inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, patentees) have found it difficult to overcome...more
Update: On January 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Janssen’s application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39099). On January 12, 2021, the Trial Judge issued the reconsideration decision, again finding the...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating three patents on anticipation grounds, finding the district court improperly relied on disclosures from multiple...more
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC - Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: District courts lack the authority to...more
Finding that the use of the phrase “present invention” in the specification limited the scope of a patent’s claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment and remanded the case,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Data Engine Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1135 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) - In one of two Section 101 cases this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Summary: Objective indicia of nonobviousness cannot be dismissed merely because all...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
“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more
SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its 1964...more
In December of last year, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s (“the Court”) decision finding U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 (“the ‘576 patent”) invalid as obvious. See...more