Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
- Chewing the Cud: Are Tariffs Sucking IP Blud?
- USPTO Issues Notice Regarding Improper Small and Micro Entity Status
- Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part II: The Mental Steps Doctrine Literally Makes No Sense
about
Category: Infringement – Literal or DOE
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The doctrine of equivalents (DOE), a creation of the Supreme Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. v. Linde Air Products (1950), is balanced by the concept of prosecution history estoppel (PHE), the contours of which were delineated over an exhaustive (eight decisions over twelve years) back-and-forth between District Courts, the…
-
By Andrew Velzen — I have previously written extensively on the ongoing legal battle between Nintendo / The Pokémon Company (referred to herein collectively as simply "Nintendo") and PocketPair over PocketPair's popular video game Palworld.[1] This past week, PocketPair published a blog post addressing some of the recent and upcoming in-game changes.[2] The PocketPair blog…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Sometimes important contributions to innovation can come from the mundane rather than the extraordinary. One (perhaps apocryphal) example comes from the story of the early development of television by Philo Farnsworth (the story, but not the apocrypha, is set forth in Evan Schwartz's book The Last Lone Inventor). In this aspect…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a joint appeal of two adverse decisions from the District Court, the Federal Circuit on procedural grounds rejected an appeal from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc. The decision was based on the Court's conclusion that WARF was precluded from asserting infringement…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In Natera Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against NeoGenomics in patent infringement litigation involving Natera's U.S. Patent Nos. 11,519,035 and 11,530,454 directed to methods for amplifying targeted genetic material and methods for detecting variations in genetic material indicative for diseases…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The provisions of U.S. regulatory law regarding FDA approval for less than all the indications for which an innovator drug was approved under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii) (the so-called "skinny label) has in the recent past raised something of a kerfuffle before the Federal Circuit (see "GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – A change in the weather is known to be extremeBut what's the sense of changing horses in midstream?I'm going out of my mind, oh, ohWith a pain that stops and startsLike a corkscrew to my heartEver since we've been apart "You're a Big Girl Now," Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment of invalidity for obviousness and for noninfringement for a series of patents challenged in ANDA litigation, in Genentech Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. In doing so, a majority of the panel illustrated perhaps unintentionally how initial impressions regarding the issues before the Court…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — While the Federal Circuit has patent law as its principal focus, as a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, questions come before the Court on more mundane, procedural matters (which, sometimes being dispositive, does not reduce their importance to the parties and occasionally the rest of us). One such case was…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The International Trade Commission can more readily provide injunctive relief against an adjudged infringer than a district court, under appropriate conditions (i.e., with regard to an infringing product or a product made by infringing a claimed method). In September, the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the Commission in…
Patent Docs 