Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- 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)
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In its recent decision in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. the Federal Circuit reminds us that most verities in patent law are not eternal and are frequently subject to case-by-case interpretation, in this case the purported verity being that reciting the indefinite article ("a") in a patent claim is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – A preliminary injunction is one of the most potent weapons in a patent plaintiff's arsenal, being capable of shutting down an accused infringer's continued infringement, prohibiting the infringing product from the stream of commerce, and forcing (or at least strongly motivating) a defendant to settlement. Being so powerful, such injunctions are not…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – A fractured affirmance of a district court decision to dismiss an infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) was the occasion for the Federal Circuit to illustrate the continued debate over the scope of the safe harbor enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Cardiovalve Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., which has as its most significant aspect an unnecessary untethering of obviousness with evidence…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. The case arose in two IPR proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413, owned…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in five inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were obvious. In light of the Office's promulgation of Guidance to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit's In re Cellect decision has caused a great deal of commentary and proposals to avoid its consequences, including changing prosecution strategies and filing prospective, precautionary terminal disclaimers (see "Overcoming the Consequences of In re Cellect") to reimbue predictability regarding patent term to patent portfolio prosecution (as well as there…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – One of the most notable consequences (intended or not, for good or ill) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) has been the possibility (now likelihood, if only in frequency) that the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and district courts will be different (typically to the detriment of patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit; but see Teva Pharma. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.) was that an inordinate…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 17th annual list of top patent stories. For 2023, we identified ten stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
Patent Docs 