Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
- Federal Circuit Refuses to Switch District Court’s Finding for Nintendo
- Supreme Court to Resolve Dispute Over Marketing of “Skinny Labeled” Generics
- Solicitor General Proves Persuasive; Supreme Court Grants Hikma’s Certiorari Petition
- CNIPA Implements Inventor ID Requirement
about
Month: September 2020
-
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Compulife: Datascraping and Trade Secret Law" on September 8, 2020 from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm (ET). David Conrad of Fish & Richardson, PC; Kenneth Corsello of IBM; and James Pooley of James Pooley, PLC will discuss Compulife v. Newman, an Eleventh Circuit…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed under Rule 36 the decision by the District Court of Nevada (Du, J.) in March that the claims asserted by Amarin Pharma against West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. were invalid for obviousness, in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit recently applied well-established principles of obviousness in affirming the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's invalidation of several patents related to antifungal formulations in Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The subject matter of the claimed invention was a topical formulation of 1,3-dihydro-5-fluoro-1-hydroxy-2,1-benzoxaborole (known as tavaborole): and…
Patent Docs 