Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Reasons for the PTAB’s Priority Determination in Broad’s Favor (Perhaps)
- Mexico Publishes Amendments to Intellectual Property Law
- PTAB (Again) Awards Priority of Invention to Broad in Interference No. 106,115
- Argentina Repeals Pharmaceutical Patent Examination Guidelines
- USPTO Moves to Protect Design Rights for Digital Innovations
about
Category: District Court
-
District Court Adopts Magistrate's Conclusion of Invalidity under § 101 and Grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware adopted Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge's conclusion that U.S. Patent No.…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases illustrate the need for software or computer-implemented claims to explicitly recite novel structural…
-
By Michael Borella — In a previous article on the USPTO's publication of its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, we wrote: Despite the Interim Guidance offering a reasonably fair and thorough overview of the current law of patent-eligibility, applicants must remain cautious. The Interim Guidance is for examination of patents only. Courts…
-
District Court Finds Lilly Patent Infringed Based on Inducement of Infringement by Single Actor By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana determined that Eli Lilly and Company had shown by a…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellant Immersion Corp. In that case, the District Court for the District of Delaware construed 35 U.S.C. § 120 to prohibit filing a continuation application on the day its…
-
By Eddie Obissi and Michael Borella — Note: This coverage of a district court case from last year provides an overview of the patented invention, as well as the decision currently being appealed to the Federal Circuit. In a subsequent article, we will review the parties' briefs. On November 21, 2012, McRo, Inc., doing business as…
-
District Court Overrules PTO Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 120 By Kevin E. Noonan — Judge Richard Andrews, District Court Judge for the District of Delaware rendered a decision on a motion for summary judgment in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. that, if affirmed, could put many more patents at risk than Myriad, Mayo, and…
-
(Or, and then there was one were none) By Kevin E. Noonan — As discussed for the past month, Myriad has finally given up trying to defend its BRCA gene testing franchise. The one remaining matter, Myriad's case against GeneDx has settled, as announced by the company today. However, GeneDx has not moved before the…
-
(Or, and then there was one) By Kevin E. Noonan — As discussed at the end of January, Myriad has given up its Quixotic quest to validate its BRCA gene testing franchise and has abandoned its several lawsuits (many of which were consolidated before the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and captioned…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics in 2013, Myriad (paradoxically to those either not paying attention or who over interpreted the scope of the Court's holding in its opinion) filed suit against six genetic diagnostic test providers (Ambry Genetics, Gene-by-Gene, Quest, GeneDx, Invitae,…
Patent Docs 