Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- BioNTech Sues Moderna over mRNA Vaccine Technology
- CNIPA Issues Letter on Identity of Foreign Inventors
- 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
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Andrew Williams — We recently reported that Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware interpreted the second prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan because the first prong was no longer applicable in view of the Supreme Court's TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods…
-
Judge Gilstrap's Short-lived Venue Calculus By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit has spent more than a decade as the Supreme Court's favorite judicial whipping boy, usually because the Court apprehended that their appellate inferior had strayed from the Court's own precedential appreciation of U.S. patent law. One area where the Court has recently imposed…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The first scene in the iconic dystopian 1985 sci-fi movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam (one of the Monty Python troop) is of a peaceful citizen being snatched from his comfy chair by jackbooted, black-clad members of a SWAT team, who unceremoniously stuff him into a body bag-restraint as they take him…
-
By Joseph Herndon — On July 27, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Audatex North America, Inc. v. Mitchell International, Inc., upholding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision in which all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,912,740 and 8,468,038 were held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §…
-
By Michael Borella — When considering the patent-eligibility of claims, size usually matters. Claims that are longer and recite more detailed inventions tend to be more likely to survive 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges than those that are shorter and high level. But not in all cases. Continuing a trend that we've seen in Amdocs (Israel)…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – As patent practitioners learned to their chagrin in the AMP v. Myriad Genetics case, sometimes broader Constitutional issues arise even in patent law. This is also true of matters relating to the Bill of Rights; for example, the last time the Seventh Amendment was considered in the patent context was Markman…
-
By Andrew Williams — In the third installment of the "Amgen v." trilogy of BPCIA Federal Circuit cases, the Court in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. answered a question that had been lingering since the very first case — can a reference product sponsor use discovery to obtain information from a biosimilar applicant if it…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The University of California/Berkeley filed its opening brief to the Federal Circuit last week, asking that Court to overturn the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that there was no interference-in-fact between Berkeley's application and several U.S. patents and applications assigned to The Broad Institute. That decision is entitled to review…
-
[The author of this article, along with Patent Docs authors Andrew Williams and Donald Zuhn, and MBHB attorneys Jeff Armstrong, Aaron Gin, Jim Lovsin, and Jeremy Noe, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Appellant Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and vacatur. Ed.] By Kevin E. Noonan – In a decision that took an inordinately long time to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions earlier this week in an opinion styled Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. The decision is consistent with recent trends at…
Patent Docs 