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 Donald Zuhn — Today, in UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that UCB's Cimzia® brand antibody does not infringe Yeda's U.S. Patent No. 6,090,923. In affirming the District Court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Many of the complaints from patent holders over the PTO's inter partes review process under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (codified in pertinent part at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319) stem from how the Office has implemented these proceedings (at §§ 42.1-42.80 and 42.100-42.123). Genzyme has addressed their complaints about the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision in the past quarter century for the working patent practitioner is Dickinson v. Zurko, which strictly speaking is less a patent case than an administrative law decision. But every day the question of whether a party can successfully challenge a U.S. Patent and…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. Specifically, the Court requested that Appellant (Aqua Products, Inc.) and Intervenor…
-
By Michael Borella — McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR, and eventually rendered a final decision finding that all challenged claims of the '413 patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In parallel, nonprecedential decisions regarding litigation over the same patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the claims were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This decision, expressly applying the Supreme Court's revision to how courts apply the indefiniteness test in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,…
-
By Michael Borella — Patent owner Electric Power Group asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710 against Alstom S.A. and various other parties in the Central District of California. The District Court granted Alstom's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Electric Power Group appealed to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) that the claims of Genzyme's U.S Patent Nos. 7,351,410 and 7,655,226 were obvious, in Genzyme Therapeutic Products, Inc. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. The claims at issue are directed to methods…
-
Claims of Another "Loan Application" Patent Invalidated under Section 101 By Joseph Herndon — In a nonprecedential opinion issued earlier today, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that had survived the District Court in LendingTree, LLC, v. Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., & Adchemy, Inc. This case is eerily similar both in…
-
By Michael Borella — Douglas M. Shortridge, the named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,933, sued Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC ("Foundation") for infringement thereof in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Foundation filed a Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss on the pleadings, alleging that the claims of the '933 patent…
Patent Docs 