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
Kilpatrick partners Tina McKeon, Michael Bertelson, and Michael Turton recently joined Laura Fritts (Vice President, Intellectual Property, Legal, Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) to present at the annual Kilpatrick...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
CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1027, -1028 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022) - In its only precedential patent opinion this week, the Federal Circuit held patents directed to the detection of organ transplant...more
On May 23rd, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California granted summary judgement to Defendant Sweegen, Inc. on its motion that Plaintiff Pure Circle USA Inc.'s claims in suit were invalid...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 15th annual list of top patent stories. For 2021, we identified nine stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had...more
Inventors are generally counseled to file a patent application as soon as they have a patentable invention to avoid potential forfeiture of important rights in today’s first inventor-to-file system. However,...more
In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more
Perfect Your Patent Prosecution Strategies and Master the Patent Application Process in the U.S and Around the World. ACI’s 18th Global Summit on Life Sciences Patents virtual conference this August will provide practical...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
Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1221 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2019) - This week’s Case of the Week focuses on issues relating to written...more
Patent practitioners, inventors, in-house counsel, and patent examiners alike have been clamoring for more guidance on computer-implemented functional claim limitations invoking § 112(f) since the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Natural Alternatives Int’l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019) In an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, the Federal Circuit reversed, issuing an...more
Video game patents being asserted in litigation are frequently challenged by defendants at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board by filing a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or (less...more
When faced with allegations of patent infringement at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a respondent must quickly evaluate whether or not to request an AIA review (hereinafter, inter partes review for convenience) at...more
The Mayo/Alice two-step patent-eligibility framework focuses on the patent claims. Nevertheless, recent Federal Circuit decisions have relied on patent specification statements to support holdings that the claims are...more
The Federal Circuit recently decided a case concerning three patents owned by Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Case Nos. 2015-1769, 2015-1770, 2015-1771 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30,...more