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 Donald Zuhn — On July 23, 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed by a 2-1 vote a District Court judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,081,154 (the ‘154 patent) was invalid for double patenting. The Federal Circuit also vacated the District Court’s holding that the ‘154 patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,001,161 (the ‘161…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit reversed a District Court judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (the ‘741 patent) was not invalid. In particular, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court clearly erred in determining the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and as a result,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit invalidated two patents this week on obviousness grounds, overturning a jury verdict that had survived a JMOL motion to the District Court. Surprising about the decision was that it merely referenced KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. as an affirmation of its own jurisprudence, while…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit upheld a judgment from a District Court that Defendant-Appellant Alphapharm Pty., Inc. had failed to prove invalidity and unenforceability of claims 1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 4,687,777 (the ‘777 patent). Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court did not…
-
Innogenetics Appeals Its Win over Abbott By Robert Dailey — In two earlier posts (January 8 and January 12), we reported on Innogenetics' $7 million victory after a jury found that Abbott had infringed Innogenetics' patent covering methods for HCV genotyping. The jury also found that Abbott's conduct had been willful. However, in a…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On January 22, 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a proposal to amend its rules by adopting Federal Circuit Rules 28(a)(15) and (16), 28(j), 30(k), and 31(b), (e), and (f); and by deleting Federal Circuit Rule 32(e). According to the Court's announcement, the rule changes would require parties represented by…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (Caraco), the Federal Circuit concluded that the District Court did not err in construing the term "about 1:5" or in finding no literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents,…
-
By Kevin Noonan — Illustrating once again distinctions between permanent and preliminary injunctions in its jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit used a combination of its patent-specific precedent and regional circuit law to affirm a preliminary injunction against only one of three co-defendants. In Abbott Lab. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., the Court held that one…
-
By Robert Dailey — Last Friday the Federal Circuit refused Ariad's request to hear its appeal of a pre-trial ruling in its district court litigation with Amgen. In mid-2006, Amgen filed a declaratory judgment action against Ariad in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Ariad responded by asking Judge Kent Jordan…
-
By Mark Chael — In an opinion by Circuit Judges Prost and Dyk handed down on December 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona had incorrectly construed the claim term "dispensing" in U.S. Patent No. 6,352,861 (the '861 patent)…
Patent Docs 