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 — Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holding that in an interference between Pioneer Hi-Bred International's U.S. Patent No. 6,258,999 and Monsanto Technology's U.S. Application No. 11/151,700, Monsanto was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) and Monsanto's '700 application claims were entitled…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Thursday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a § 271(e)(2) patent infringement action based on method-of-use claims because the ANDA filer was only seeking FDA approval for non-patented uses. In AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Apotex Corp., the Court held that alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) was sufficient…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holding that claim 24 of Appellants' application, which was involved in an interference with Appellees' patent, was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). That section states that: A claim which is the same as, or for…
-
By Andrew Williams — In a sequel of sorts to the hugely popular Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit released Streck II (Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)) earlier this month. Not to be upstaged by the original, this ambitious follow-up leaves…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The effects of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. continue to ripple unpredictably through the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence, promoting inconsistencies in obviousness determinations by the Court that seem contrary to its mandate to harmonize U.S. patent law. The most recent illustration of this effect is…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its fifth annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2011, we identified a dozen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on biotech/pharma patent…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its fifth annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2011, we identified a dozen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on biotech/pharma patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction includes all questions "arising under" the patent laws of the U.S. (among other things). For all other issues the Court applies the law of the circuit in which the action was brought. This practice results in the Court deferring to (and applying the law as…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction in Warner Chilcott Labs. Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., an ANDA case brought before Judge Martini in the New Jersey District Court. While not extending or changing the law on the requirements for a preliminary injunction grant, the decision…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, in Teva Pharma. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharma. LP, the Federal Circuit reiterated that, in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), "[t]o establish prior invention, the party asserting it must prove that it appreciated what it had made." The complication is, however, how do you define what the…
Patent Docs 