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 — That it is more difficult today to be a patentee able to defend her patent rights than any time since the 1940's is nicely illustrated by the Federal Circuit's decision in Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where the patentee prevailed only to face almost certain defeat on remand.…
-
By Andrew Williams — The Federal Circuit made it clear earlier today that district courts should freely grant stays in view of Covered Business Method ("CBM") patent reviews instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., the Court reversed and remanded a United States District Court…
-
By Andrew Williams — When can a sufficient disclosure for patentability purposes nevertheless fail to adequately "describe" the claims of a patent? According to the Federal Circuit in a case issued this week, when the claims are added in a broadening reissue application. In Antares Pharma Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., the Court had the…
-
By Michael Borella — Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, and without construing the claims, the District Court held that the '545 patent does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the Ariosa v. Sequenom case last Friday, and a discussion of that argument will be posted in due course. Having posted on Sequenom's opening brief and the amicus brief filed by BIO, completeness requires a post on Ariosa's responsive brief and the amicus…
-
By Michael Borella — Introduction This case has a storied history. Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, the District Court held that the '545 patent does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One of the most iconic inventions of the biotechnology era is the "Harvard Oncomouse" invented by Philip Leder and Timothy Stewart in the early 1980's. One of the first transgenic mice transformed with DNA encoding something other than a mammalian virus, these mice were susceptible to certain cancers due to…
-
By Andrew Williams — Anyone that has been monitoring the outcome of district court cases recently will be aware of the perils of not including sufficient information, or not timely supplementing, preliminary infringement or invalidity contentions required by many local patent rules. The purpose of these contentions, which are often exchanged very early in a…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Castigating the Supreme Court, at least in patent circles, has become as prevalent as the Court's forays into patent law have been to overrule the Federal Circuit. While even those who give the Court the benefit of the doubt and appreciate the parsimony with which many of its decisions are…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we have been reporting, the U.S. Patent Office has requested comments on the trial proceedings under the America Invents Act. Out of the 17 issues outlined, the Office highlighted two for which it would especially appreciate public feedback: (1) the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") standard for claim…
Patent Docs 