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 Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed a narrow but important question regarding its jurisprudence on the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (OTPD). That question was whether its decision in Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., which established that a first patent filed earlier than…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Having a court grant a preliminary injunction is frequently an important strategic victory for a patent plaintiff in an infringement suit. The injunction not only eliminates a revenue stream for the accused infringer but also imposes other requirements (such as burdensome efforts to remove the alleged infringing article from the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A certain amount of comment has recently been evinced from the patent bar by the voicing from several members of the Federal Circuit, including the Chief Judge, of their dismay over the number of patent cases coming to the Court. In particular, this increase in the patent case census in…
-
What is a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes? By Joseph Herndon — Patent owner Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration") appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2k Sports, Inc.,…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last month, in FWP IP ApS v. Biogen MA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board granting Biogen's motion that FWP's U.S. Application No. 11/576,871 did not provide an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for claims…
-
By Michael Borella — Ancora sued HTC in the Western District of Washington alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941. HTC moved to dismiss the case, contending that the claims of the patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court granted HTC's motion. Ancora appealed to the Federal Circuit. The '941 patent is…
-
AIA Post-grant Reviews Not Precluded by Assignor Estoppel By Kevin E. Noonan — On Friday, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., deciding that the Board had erred in certain of its determinations regarding Arista's inter partes review challenge to certain claims of Cisco's U.S. Patent No.…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Nobel Biocare Services AG appealed from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR) holding claims 1–5 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977 invalid based on an ABT Catalog. Many issues were presented, and here, we review the…
-
By Michael Borella — Data Engine Technologies (DET) filed an infringement suit against Google in the District of Delaware contending infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259, 5,784,545, 6,282,551, and 5,303,146. Google responded with a Rule 12(c) motion arguing that the patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court agreed…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,722,898; 7,910,131; and 8,821,930 were not invalid and would be infringed by Defendants-Appellants TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and TWi International…
Patent Docs 