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 — It is widely appreciated that the Supreme Court has spent the better part of the last ten years exercising its supervisory role over the Federal Circuit, something the Court generally refrained from doing for the first 15-20 years of the appellate court's existence (see "Is It Time for the Supreme…
-
By Andrew Williams — In Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified that when a party to an interference appeals the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to a district court in a civil action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146, and new evidence is submitted, the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of Plaintiff-Appellant M.R. Mikkilineni's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) requesting relief from a final judgment due to alleged fraud by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In denying the motion, the Federal…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal decided last month, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs-Appellees Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership ("Sanofi"); affirmed the District Court's denial of a motion for leave to file…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Sometimes it is what a court doesn't do that points to what needs to be done. That appears to be the case for claim construction and the Federal Circuit's standard, since Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998), that the appellate court should review claim…
-
Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Genetically Engineered Seed By Kevin E. Noonan — Yesterday, the Federal Circuit once again upheld a judgment of infringement brought by Monsanto against a farmer who replanted its patented Roundup Ready® seed. As it had in Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, Monsanto Co. v. David, and Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A little more than one year after the Supreme Court issued its opinion on the patent-eligibility of (business) method claims in Bilski v. Kappos, the Court has granted certiorari in one case (Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services) and may consider two others (Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec. and…
-
On Friday, the Federal Circuit (presumably) denied Defendants' petition for panel rehearing in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unlike the Court's earlier notice regarding denial of Plaintiffs'/Appellees' petition, this notice did not identify the party (but Defendants' petition was the only one pending). In their petition, counsel for Defendants asserted…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reaffirmed the primacy of the factual disclosures used to establish obviousness, and how deficiencies thereof can defeat an obviousness claim, in reversing an invalidity determination in Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. It also showed how persistently defendants pursue the tarnish of inequitable conduct even…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Yesterday, the Federal Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In their petition, counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees asserted two grounds for rehearing, of points of law and fact overlooked or apprehended by the Court (see "Plaintiff(s) File Petition for Rehearing…
Patent Docs 