Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee Has Its Say, Denies Judge Newman’s Latest Request for Review
- PTAB Issues Judgment on Priority in CRISPR Interference
- Parties File Supplemental Priority Statements in CRISPR Interference
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part V: The Goalposts Keep Moving
- Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Wednesday Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will be participating in their third, and final, presidential debate. While the third debate will address the economy and domestic policy issues, there is a strong likelihood, particularly in view of the current financial crisis, that U.S. patent policy will draw little…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 2, 2008, Judge William Young of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts issued his 150-page opinion in Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. , Amgen’s patent infringement suit over Roche’s Mircera® drug product (see "Victory for Amgen in District Court Decision – Part I"). …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today issued an Order, pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36, affirming the District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Amgen’s patent infringement suit over Roche’s Mircera® drug product. The District Court granted the preliminary injunction on February…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As Patent Docs has reported (see Part I and Part II), last week District Court Judge William G. Young (D. Mass) issued a 150-page decision on post-trial motions and a permanent injunction, and provided his rationale for a number of pretrial summary judgment motion decisions, in Amgen Inc.…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the District Court for the District of Delaware that U.S. Patent No. 5,236,940 does not qualify as an enabling prior art reference, and therefore, does not anticipate claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814. The ‘814 patent, which is owned…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit’s inequitable conduct jurisprudence has appeared for some time to be unduly fact- and panel-dependent, straying in the opinion of at least Judge Rader from the principle enunciated in the Court’s en banc decision in Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed.…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last Wednesday, Plaintiffs-Appellees SmithKline Beecham Corp., SmithKline Beecham plc, and Glaxo Group Ltd. (GSK) filed their brief in the Tafas v. Dudas appeal (see "GSK Files Brief in Tafas v. Dudas Appeal"). As we previously reported, the Plaintiffs-Appellees had until September 24th to serve and file their brief. Also…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — After several years of having its decisions reversed by the Supreme Court — including KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Merck KGAA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Over the past year, the Federal Circuit has addressed on many occasions the scope of the "case or controversy" requirement for a court to have jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Several of these decisions have been directed to the proper jurisdictional scope of declaratory judgment actions…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding on summary judgment by the District Court for the Northern District of California that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,767,708 and 5,126,270 and certain asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,745 are invalid, and that the remainder of the…
Patent Docs 