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 — Earlier this month, in Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the District Court for the District of Columbia granting summary judgment to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to Daiichi's challenges to patent term adjustment (PTA) determinations made by the…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we reported earlier, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc. case — the first appeal under the covered business method ("CBM") patent review procedure. In so doing, the Court made several ancillary determinations, such as whether the PTAB…
-
By Michael Borella — Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates the procedural aspects of 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329, which codifies post grant reviews. The CBM review process is an…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — There have been many voices raised in recent years against the patent system for a variety of political, policy, or personal reasons. Indeed, there is even a book entitled Don't File a Patent that sets out the authors' reasons against patenting. But if ever there was a company who would…
-
By James Lovsin and Andrew Williams — Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC case. As we have previously reported, this case was the first appeal of the first IPR Final Written Decision for the first IPR ever…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting summary judgment to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the Office had properly calculated the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,352,362…
-
By David Grosby and Michael Borella — On September 23, 2010, Eon filed suit against seventeen defendants in the District Court of the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757. During the case, the '757 patent went through two reexaminations. The claims were amended in the first reexamination, and then confirmed valid as…
-
By Paul Cole* — The June 12, 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit in the above case has been discussed by Kevin Noonan in his posting of 22 June, but it is believed that the factual and legal background could benefit from further discussion. It is convenient to consider claims 1 and 2 of…
-
The More Things Change (Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America), the More They Stay the Same (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.) By Andrew Williams — On June 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit handed down its second opinion in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz Inc. case. And, much like with…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Over seven years ago, the Federal Circuit delivered a mixed ruling against Pfizer in litigation against Teva) relating to the pain medication Celebrex® (celocoxib) (where "celocoxib" is 4-[5-(4-methylphenyl)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]benzenesulfonamide). In that case, Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court upheld a District Court determination that Teva…
Patent Docs 