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 — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197 to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2019). Because Enzo raised the issue du jour,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit reversed findings of non-obviousness and affirmed (over Chief Judge Prost's dissent) a finding that claims asserted in ANDA litigation were not invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement in Nalproprion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. ANDA litigation arose over Nalproprion Pharma's…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware finding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,992,180 and 8,097,405 invalid for lack of enablement. Enzo had asserted the '180 patent in…
-
By Michael Borella — MyMail is the holder of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,863 and 9,021,070, both directed to "methods of modifying toolbars that are displayed on Internet-connected devices such as personal computers." MyMail initially asserted these patents against ooVoo and IAC Search & Media, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. After the Supreme Court's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit again reviewed a determination of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, in this instance by the International Trade Commission (ITC), again finding that one of the Supreme Court's exceptions to the preclusive effects of prosecution history estoppel (the "tangential relationship" test) applied, and affirmed the ITC's finding…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In its decision in a consolidated appeal, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., the Federal Circuit had the occasion to apply the Supreme Court's distinction regarding the limits of prosecution history estoppel on the doctrine of equivalents, regarding the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Amgen Inc. v. Coherus BioSciences Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing a complaint filed by Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd. against Coherus BioSciences Inc. for failure to state a claim. Amgen had filed suit against…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that two patents owned by Celgene Corp. were invalid in Celgene Corp. v. Peter decided last week. In rendering its decision, the Court also addressed on the merits Celgene's argument that retroactive invalidation of its patents…
-
By Michael Borella — On July 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied ChargePoint's request for panel rehearing and en banc review of its March 28, 2019 decision rendering four ChargePoint patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Since we did not review this case when the panel decision came down, and because the case subsequently…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The interplay (or perhaps utilization) of inter partes review (IPR) in ANDA litigation was illustrated by the Federal Circuit in last month's Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Generico, LLC nonprecedential decision. The case arose over U.S. Patent No. 8,865,688 owned by Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and exclusively licensed to Salix. …
Patent Docs 