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 Kevin E. Noonan — In a conundrum worthy of a law school civil procedure examination, plaintiff Gensetix found itself apparently with no remedy for infringement by Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research Ltd., and William Decker of patents licensed from the University of Texas (UT), when UT refused to join as a necessary party…
-
By James L. Lovsin — Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality as well as the Board's authority. Judge O'Malley filed a dissenting opinion—nearly…
-
By Michael Borella — Introduction Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102, and infringed. The § 101 dispute was tried at the bench. NetScout appealed.…
-
By Michael Borella — Electronic Communication Technologies (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly infringing claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261. The claim recites: 11. An automated notification system, comprising: one or more transceivers designed to communicate data; one or more memories; one or more processors; and computer program code stored in the one…
-
Federal Circuit Extends Arthrex to Patent Prosecution By James Lovsin and Alexa Giralamo* — This week, the Federal Circuit extended its holding in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., that administrative patent judges ("APJs") were improperly appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, to ex parte proceedings in In re Boloro Global Limited. Under…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Earlier today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/726,162 as being patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The '162 application, which is entitled "An Iterative Process of Squeezing Excess Food out of Daily Food Intake…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a procedurally unusual decision (but one unsurprising in all other respects), the Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a district court's denial of a temporary restraining order to keep off the market Amgen's biosimilar product Mvasi in Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp. The issue arose over the notice…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common ownership in applying the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), in Immunex Corp.…
-
By George "Trey" Lyons, III — Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued extensive revisions to the 2019 Rules of Practice and also overhauled the vast majority of its required filing forms. While all practitioners should take a comprehensive review of the new rules (which can be found here and apply to "all cases filed or pending…
-
By Joshua Rich — Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review. Thus, while the merits of the case will have…
Patent Docs 