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 — On March 13, Myriad Genetics filed a Notice of (interlocutory) Appeal with the Federal Circuit. Myriad is seeking to have the Court review and reverse the District Court's denial of the company's preliminary jnjunction motion against Ambry Genetics in its on-going (and now consolidated) lawsuit on several claims from Myriad's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association (SDIPLA) is one of two groups that have filed an amicus curiae brief urging reversal of the District Court's summary judgment decision in Ariosa Inc v. Sequenom, Inc. (The brief from the other amicus, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, will be the subject of…
-
By Michael Borella — In 2011, Cyberfone sued CNN and 80 other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the District Court held the claims of the '060 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on Monday in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. illustrating how difficult it can be to overturn a district court determination based on a question of fact, at least when the question involves a chemical compound defined by structural properties supported by a description…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In December, the Federal Circuit invited the United States to address the issue of whether Consumer Watchdog had Article III standing to pursue an appeal of a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913, which is assigned to the Wisconsin Alumni…
-
By Andrew Williams — The standard of review at the Federal Circuit is important. Even though it often appears like cases are re-litigated at the Appeals Court, it is actually very difficult (or at least should be) to overturn a lower court's factual determinations. This is especially true for a finding that a patent was…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In December, the Federal Circuit invited the United States to address the issue of whether Consumer Watchdog had Article III standing to pursue an appeal of a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913, which is assigned to the Wisconsin Alumni…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Earlier this week, Sequenom, Inc. filed its opening brief in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., appealing summary judgment that its licensed claims to a genetic diagnostic method for detecting fetal diseases and abnormalities in utero were invalid for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter. In view of the exquisitely subjective nature…
-
By Michael Borella — While non-precedential, this recent Federal Circuit decision further illustrates the Court's thinking with regard to the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and provides a reminder about the importance of procedural issues in § 101 cases. SmartGene filed a declaratory judgment action against the defendants ("ABL"), alleging non-infringement…
-
By Nicole Reifman — The Federal Circuit's decision in Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. provides a warning for patent practitioners seeking to claim priority to earlier filed patent applications: failure to specifically reference each earlier filed patent application will result in a loss of a claim to priority to the omitted application(s). Medtronic sued…
Patent Docs 