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 Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit returned to its consideration of the outcome in the District Court of The Medicines Company's ANDA litigation against Mylan and Bioniche Pharma over a proposed generic version of Medicines' bivalirudin drug (sold as Angiomax®), an anticoagulant used in heart surgery. In doing so, the Court focused on…
-
By Andrew Williams — In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the same prior art? In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit responded in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Despite the Supreme Court's admonition, in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., that attorney's fees and other measures of enhanced damages be granted, in a district court's discretion, only in rare cases (in keeping with the statutes requirement…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer S.A.S. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court for the District of Delaware did not abuse its discretion in determining that, under the totality of the circumstances, the case was an exceptional one, and the Federal Circuit therefore…
-
Federal Circuit Finds Motion Tracking System to be Patent-Eligible By Michael Borella — After the dark days of 2014 and 2015, in which exactly one Federal Circuit decision out of over twenty 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges was found to meet the requirements of that part of the statute, we have seen clouds disperse to some…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in In re Depomed, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two instituted grounds in an inter partes review rendered claims 1, 3-5, and 10-13 of Depomed's U.S. Patent No. 6,723,340 unpatentable as obvious. The '340…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit handed down two related opinions last week, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, one of which raised the question of whether (and when) it is appropriate for the Court to remand decisions…
-
Federal Circuit Finds That USPTO Board Interpreted CBM Statute Too Broadly By Joseph Herndon — In an appeal of a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review, the Federal Circuit overturned a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board that U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 is a CBM patent, and vacated…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In an otherwise unremarkable albeit precedential decision, the Federal Circuit set forth an explication of when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has, and has not, given the court enough information to determine whether its factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence. And in its decision handed down today in…
-
Personal Jurisdiction Exists Due to Warning Letters and Prior Litigations in Forum By Joseph Herndon — Establishing personal jurisdiction in the United States over a company operating in a foreign country can be difficult. How does a U.S. company protect itself in its home state when threatened with patent infringement by patents owned by a…
Patent Docs 