Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- USPTO Moves to Protect Design Rights for Digital Innovations
- 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
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court judgment of validity and infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding of validity, holding that U.S. Patent No. 5,229,382 (the '382 patent) was not anticipated by Chakrabati et al., 1980, J. Med. Chem. 23:878-84 (Chakrabati) or the patentee's clinical trials,…
-
By Kevin Noonan — With the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. on the horizon, the Federal Circuit continues to tiptoe around the standards for obviousness. The most recent example can be found in it opinion affirming a decision of no invalidity in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court decision granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership (Sanofi), the Federal Circuit concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief, and thus, affirmed the District…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In response to the adoption of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, the Federal Circuit has adopted new Federal Circuit Rule 32.1. Under the new Rule, parties will no longer be prohibited or restricted from citing nonprecedential dispositions issued by the Federal Circuit after January 1, 2007. The new Rule…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court judgment holding claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814 (the '814 patent) enforceable, valid, and infringed, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding of no inequitable conduct, vacated the District Court's finding that claims 1-5 of the '814 patent were not invalid…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,520; 5,731,355; and 5,731,356, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction and finding of literal infringement, and affirmed the District Court's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The patents at issue…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court judgment of validity and noninfringement, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's finding of validity, holding the asserted claims in U.S. Patent No. 5,990,176 to be anticipated by the disclosure in U.S. Patent No. 5,684,211. The '176 patent relates to degradation-resistant compositions…
-
ESTs Unpatentable for Failure to Satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101 Where Function of Underlying Gene Is Unknown By Sherri Oslick — In an opinion of great import to biotechnology patent law, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals that denied a patent to five expressed sequence tags (ESTs)…
-
By Kevin Noonan — The peripatetic case of Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. has once again been reviewed by the Federal Circuit (decided August 3, 2006). Once again the CAFC has failed to lay the several issues in the case to rest. While affirming infringement and validity of two of the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment for Appellees (Inglis et al.) in an interference involving vaccines comprising modified viral vectors. In particular, the subject matter of the interference concerned vaccines comprising a poxvirus vector having a…
Patent Docs 