Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Claim Construction
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The latest chapter in the long-running dispute between Amgen and Sandoz over Sandoz's Zarxio® biosimilar to Amgen's Neupogen® biologic drug came to a close last week when the Federal Circuit affirmed grant of summary judgment against Amgen in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. To recap, Amgen's Neupogen® product (filgrastim) is…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
What is a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes? By Joseph Herndon — Patent owner Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration") appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2k Sports, Inc.,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Patent law can be apparently inconsistent, particularly where claim construction is concerned. For example, claim construction standards that apply in district court are not the same standards that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies during examination; the rationale for the difference is a mixture of a patent having a presumption…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court for the District of Connecticut accurately interpreted the Federal Circuit's decision in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp. (Enzo II), 780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015), concerning the proper construction of the claims in…
-
By Michael Borella — Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. That is, in order to invalidate a claim over two or more prior art references, the…
-
By Joseph Herndon — In a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings which upheld the patentability of claims due to construction of the claim term "is connected to the computer nework". Namely, Samsung Electronics as well as a number of other…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit's decision on Friday, in Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., illustrates the risks a litigant can take when agreeing to a stipulation in an effort at least to reduce litigation costs and issues presented at trial. The case involved ANDA litigation over ANDA defendant Breckenridge Labs'…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit returned to its consideration of the outcome in the District Court of The Medicines Company's ANDA litigation against Mylan and Bioniche Pharma over a proposed generic version of Medicines' bivalirudin drug (sold as Angiomax®), an anticoagulant used in heart surgery. In doing so, the Court focused on…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit handed down two related opinions last week, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, one of which raised the question of whether (and when) it is appropriate for the Court to remand decisions…
Patent Docs 