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 — Last Friday, the Federal Circuit reconsidered en banc the Court's decisions in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. Long awaited, the decision was handed down "per curiam," with a majority consisting of Chief Judge Rader joined by Judges Lourie, Bryson, Moore,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A three judge Federal Circuit panel went a long way towards disentangling its jurisprudence on the question of obviousness-type double patenting, in affirming a District Court finding that the doctrine did not apply to the patent claims at issue in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva. In what seems to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a case otherwise of little interest to the biotech/pharma community, the Federal Circuit last month increased the burden on proving patentability created by prior art references for patent applicants and patentees. This was accomplished by defining a presumption of enablement not only for prior patents and published patent applications…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As we reported earlier today, the Federal Circuit, in a decision that substantially reiterates its prior opinion, determined in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that, the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo v. Prometheus notwithstanding, claims to isolated human DNA satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C.…
-
In a decision that substantially reiterates its prior opinion, the Federal Circuit decided today in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Myriad case) that, the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. notwithstanding, claims to isolated human DNA satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101: On…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit decided the In re Beineke case recently, affirming a decision by the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that applicant Walter Beineke was not entitled to a patent for two strains of white oak trees under the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (as last amended in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Judge Rader wrote a vigorous dissent to the panel majority's opinion in Momenta v. Amphastar, disagreeing with the panel majority's interpretation that the "safe harbor" embodied in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) extended to post-approval activities. Before considering the substance of his dissenting opinion, the following facts should be remembered: •…
-
"This is not how patent law works." By Andrew Williams — Writing for the majority in Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. last Wednesday, Judge Moore took issue with a position advanced by Alcon's counsel that would have essentially allowed a court to rewrite patent claims to preserve validity. Because of that, in part, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — It is a truism that each case that comes before an appellate court is decided on its own facts and on the court's application of the law to those facts. The Federal Circuit has the additional burden of establishing consistency to how the law (patent law) is applied to the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In his dissent from the majority opinion in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a case have interesting features discussed elsewhere), Chief Judge Randall Rader (at right) opines eloquently regarding the so-called "tragedy of the anti-commons" and the widespread but unsupported idea that patents inhibit innovation (Justice Breyer to…
Patent Docs 