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 and James L. Lovsin — Today in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held that the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has appointed administrative patent judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Art.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Section 112 of the Patent Act as codified, entitled "Specification" in the statute, specifies the amount of disclosure required to support a patent claim (among other requirements). Section 112(a) contains three requirements: written description, enablement, and best mode (although the latter has been in something of a state of limbo…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickerson v. Zurko, decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (whether in ex parte examination or any of the many varieties of actions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) involving questions of fact are treated on appeal with almost overwhelming deference. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Since the present reissue statute was enacted as part of the 1952 Patent Act, the Patent Office has granted almost eight million utility patents and less than twenty-five thousand reissue patents. Nevertheless, reissue practice, while arcane, is a useful tool for a patentee to correct patents that claim too little…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit earlier this week affirmed a District Court's decision invalidating almost all of the claims asserted against an ANDA filer, in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Nevertheless, because a claim was held invalid and infringed, the proposed generic compound is delayed from coming to market.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One person's attempt at judicial economy can be another person's impermissible shortcut, and when it arises in the context of a summary judgment motion of noninfringement, it can amount to legal (or at least procedural) error on appeal. Such is the case in NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc., decided last week…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS v. Rimfrost AS, the Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,028,877 and claims 1-20 of 9,078,905 to be unpatentable as obvious. The '877…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit overturned an obviousness determination in an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex Inc. The Court also reaffirmed its holdings in earlier-decided cases that applying the IPR portion of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to patents…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Recently, Seth Waxman and his team filed a wonderful certiorari petition in the Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Serv. case, which we will discuss in a forthcoming post. Using quotations from the various combinations of Federal Circuit judges in the eight (!) opinions concurring and dissenting from refusal to grant rehearing en…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, in Honeywell Int'l v. Arkema Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a combined Final Written Decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two post-grant review proceedings finding that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit also remanded to the…
Patent Docs 