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 Amneal Pharmacueticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit professed to address a question it had not considered before: whether attorney's fees and a exceptional case determination was available for fees and costs incurred when a patent owner defended an inter partes review (IPR) challenge before the Patent Trial…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In April, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granting summary judgment in favor of Repro-Med Systems, Inc., finding that Repro-Med did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,961,476. EMED Technologies Corp., which owns the '476 patent, had filed suit against Repro-Med,…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Yesterday, in Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, finding that the District Court had correctly concluded that the Office properly calculated the Patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (as a basis of a successful cause of action having renewed vigor before the Federal Circuit recently (see, e.g., "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC") is most frequently rebutted by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel ("Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc."). …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit "grappled," as the opinion put it, with the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. The case arose in an infringement suit over U.S. Patent Nos. 6,782,183 and 9,095,348. The patents were directed to "procedures and devices for endometrial ablation." …
-
By Michael Borella — Uniloc, owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049, brought an action for infringement of that patent against LG in the Northern District of California. The District Court granted LG's motion to dismiss on the pleadings, agreeing with LG that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceuticals Co. The case arose over IPRs initiated by Pfizer against Chugai's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,332,289 and…
-
Claims Directed to Selecting Fishing Hooks for Use Are Not Patentable By Joseph Herndon — Christopher John Rudy, represented pro se, appealed from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") affirming the rejection of claims 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, and 45–49 of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/425,360 ("the '360 application") as…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit had the occasion to address anew the requirements for standing to appeal an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding under Article III of the Constitution, in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. The appeal arose…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In 1984, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) shepherded a grand legislative compromise through Congress that balanced the rights and solved inefficient regulatory consequences for both branded and generic drug makers. Forever known as the Hatch-Waxman Act (formally, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act),…
Patent Docs 