Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee Has Its Say, Denies Judge Newman’s Latest Request for Review
- PTAB Issues Judgment on Priority in CRISPR Interference
- Parties File Supplemental Priority Statements in CRISPR Interference
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part V: The Goalposts Keep Moving
- Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Re-examination, whether ex parte under 35 U.S.C. § 302-307 or inter partes under 35 U.S.C. § 311-318, is a procedure intended to provide an alternative to patent litigation, which Congress characterized as being expensive and inefficient in passing legislation establishing these two routes of post-grant challenge (see H.R.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — We may have reached the high-water mark on the expansion of the inequitable conduct doctrine. Recent decisions from the Federal Circuit seem to signal a retrenchment in the Court’s treatment of the doctrine, and its willingness to affirm district court judgments finding inequitable conduct, particularly in the context…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit has been redefining its declaratory judgment jurisdiction jurisprudence ever since the Supreme Court’s Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. decision. These cases have included SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today affirmed AstraZeneca’s latest victory in its long-running battle against generic drug companies who filed ANDAs for its (former) blockbuster drug, Prilosec®. The Court affirmed in toto the decisions of Judge Barbara S. Jones, the District Court judge sitting in the Southern District of New…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court has spent the past few years issuing decision after decision circumscribing the Federal Circuit’s Congressionally-mandated authority over U.S. patent law, pursuant to its plenary powers under Article III of the Constitution. Among these decisions (including KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Sanity may be returning to the Federal Circuit’s treatment of two issues, obviousness and inequitable conduct. In Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., the Court (in an opinion by Judge Rader joined by Judges Linn and Prost) affirmed the District Court’s determination that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit clarified its position on method claim infringement to the detriment of the plaintiff in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., vacating an $84.6 million dollar judgment (in a contingency fee case, no less). In a jury trial, Defendants Thomson Corp. and I-Deal LLC were found to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Federal Circuit jurisprudence on whether an Article III case or controversy exists continues to evolve regarding the extent to which federal district courts can exercise jurisdiction in patent cases, most recently in Merck & Co. v. Apotex, Inc. (nonprecedential). The dispute was over Apotex’s ANDA filing for a…
-
By Donald Zuhn — The Federal Circuit today affirmed a finding on summary judgment by the District Court for the Northern District of California that U.S. Patent No. 5,110,493, which is owned by Plaintiff-Appellee Roche Palo Alto LLC, is valid and infringed by Defendants-Appellants Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex). In affirming the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the District Court for the Southern District of New York that Defendants-Appellees Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated, Esteve Quimica, S.A., and Laboratorios Dr. Esteve, S.A. (Mylan) did not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,786,505 and 4,853,230, which relate to oral pharmaceutical…
Patent Docs 