Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- REGENEXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Earlier today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1, 2, and 4-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,409,862 unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. The '862 patent is directed to using mass spectrometry to detect low levels…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — There are some cases where the Federal Circuit makes its decision based on the eternal verities of patent law (insofar as there are any eternal verities in patent law). One such decision arose earlier this month when the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination of non-obviousness by the Patent Trial and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The issue of standing can be outcome-determinative: without it, no matter how worthy a party's position or arguments, a court will not consider them without standing. The vagaries of standing and its importance were illustrated this fall in the Federal Circuit's opinion in University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As is well-known, Congress established the Federal Circuit as a circuit court of appeals to harmonize U.S. patent law in an environment where regional Circuit Courts had developed their own judicial interpretations of the patent statute. As a consequence, it was often to a party's benefit to choose to litigate…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act prescribed two very different post-grant review proceedings in U.S. patent law. The first, post-grant review (PGR), had some analogies with European opposition practice, in that petitions for PGR could be filed no later than nine months after the patent had granted and any ground of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continued its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims asserted in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. The case arose over InfoBionic's alleged infringement of CardioNet's U.S. Patent No. 7,099,715; claims 1, 11, and 20 are illustrative: 1. A machine-implemented method…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The inter partes review (IPR) provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been castigated by many for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find claims challenged in these proceedings to be anticipated or obvious (albeit this outcome has been less frequent for technologies in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. The Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question recently when it…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), at the end of its last term resulted in many cases with pending certiorari petitions that were based on Appointment Clause challenges to be remanded to the Federal Circuit, and many (if not most) of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The International Trade Commission can more readily provide injunctive relief against an adjudged infringer than a district court, under appropriate conditions (i.e., with regard to an infringing product or a product made by infringing a claimed method). In September, the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the Commission in…
Patent Docs 