5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Verdict in T-Cell Immunotherapy IP Case Tests 'Reasonable Royalty' Concept for Large Damage Awards
Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a PTAB decision that claims of an “e-cigarette” patent were unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The question on appeal was whether a claimed range was...more
This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) was correct in declining to consider...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that there was insufficient written description in the asserted priority applications to support a genus claim because of...more
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week focuses on the written description requirement...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) interference decision finding that priority belonged to the junior party based on sufficiently corroborated reduction to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that claims to a ballistic parachute were obvious over the prior art based on knowledge attributable to artisans and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...more
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1729 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) - Our Case of the Week again focuses on numerical values in claims. Last week we addressed a case involving whether there was...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) ruling, based on a written description analysis, that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority...more
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeal Nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) - Our Case of the Week this week focuses on the written description requirement when the patent claims a range. The...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), holding that its decisions in Arthrex and VirnetX also apply to ex parte examinations at the...more
Honeywell owns U.S. Patent 9,157,017, which claims automotive air-conditioning systems. The application to the ’017 patent had originally described and recited claims for flouroalkane compounds for use in refrigeration...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
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRA NCE - Before Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidity decision in an interference proceeding, finding that the written description of the patent at issue did not describe...more
In reversing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the level of written description required to show possession of a claimed invention “varies...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
QUAKE v. LO - Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Summary: A claimed method must be expressly described as a whole in order to satisfy the written description...more
IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC - Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Written description support for a claimed genus depends on the criticality or importance of the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was...more