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 — Even as the Senate may be preparing to vote on a patent "reform" bill that contains (for the first time) provisions codifying a standard for inequitable conduct, the Federal Circuit continues to develop its own inequitable conduct jurisprudence. The draft Senate report on the proposed bill, S. 1145,…
-
Innogenetics Loses Injunction; Abbott HCV Genotyping Test to Remain on the Market By Robert Dailey — The Federal Circuit today released its opinion in the ongoing dispute between Abbott and Innogenetics over diagnostic tools for classifying hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes. Patent Docs previously reported on the District Court order and its issuance…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court’s finding on summary judgment that Merck & Co., Inc. had not obtained favorable rulings in two prior proceedings by fraud. The prior proceedings included an infringement suit involving U.S. Patent Nos. 5,573,780 (the ‘780 patent) and 5,690,962 (the ‘962 patent)…
-
By Robert Dailey — Section 255 of the Patent Act provides a mechanism for correcting typographical or minor errors in an issued patent. Whenever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, appears in a patent and a…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On October 26th, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court’s finding on summary judgment that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,593,318 (the ‘318 patent) and 6,593,320 (the ‘320 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. The ‘318 and ‘320 patents are…
-
By Sherri Oslick — In a nonprecedential opinion, the CAFC has affirmed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences dismissing the interference at issue after finding the appellant’s claims invalid for failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In 1995, Adang and…
-
ANDA Filing Not Violation of Express Terms of Injunction By Sherri Oslick — In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Michel and issued late last week, the CAFC reversed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, finding Apotex not to have violated an injunction prohibiting it from manufacturing, using,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Malpractice is an ugly word. But patent practitioners may take some comfort in two precedential decisions today from the Federal Circuit, holding that allegations of malpractice in patent prosecution "arise under" patent law and thus provide subject matter jurisdiction in Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. The…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Paddock Labs., Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court determination that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was precluded by prosecution history estoppel, and decided whether a patentee is an indispensable party to confer standing on the exclusive licensee. Schwarz Pharma and…
-
Somerset Pharm., Inc. v. Dudas (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reissued as precedential) By Sherri Oslick — The Federal Circuit has now reissued its earlier Somerset opinion as precedential; a summary of the original, non-precedential opinion can be found in our earlier post here. In view of the CAFC’s recent reissue of the identical opinion…
Patent Docs 