Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Infringement – Literal or DOE
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed imposition of an exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930) by the Federal Trade Commission against 10X Genomyx (an intervenor in this appeal) over importation of patented microfluidic chips, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order imposed by the International Trade Commission against Bio-Rad for importing infringing microfluidic systems and components used for gene sequencing or related analyses, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Int'l. Trade Comm. The ITC's decision followed a complaint by 10X Genomics, an intervenor…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Baxalta Inc., Baxalta US Inc., and Nektar Therapeutics for infringing Bayer Healthcare's patent to human blood clotting factor conjugates in Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. Bayer Healthcare sued Defendants on U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520, alleging willful infringement by Baxalta's…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 14th annual list of top patent stories. For 2020, we identified eight stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court affirming plaintiffs asserting their patents under the doctrine six times (versus denying DOE infringement on…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Trial courts tend to get more than the benefit of the doubt when their decisions are viewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard, and juries similarly are affirmed unless there isn't substantial evidence supporting their verdicts. Both these rubrics, which extend more generally to cases involving disputes outside patent law,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC) and its related limiting doctrines, prosecution history estoppel (Amgen Inc. v. Coherus…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In April, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granting summary judgment in favor of Repro-Med Systems, Inc., finding that Repro-Med did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,961,476. EMED Technologies Corp., which owns the '476 patent, had filed suit against Repro-Med,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (as a basis of a successful cause of action having renewed vigor before the Federal Circuit recently (see, e.g., "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC") is most frequently rebutted by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel ("Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc."). …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In 1984, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) shepherded a grand legislative compromise through Congress that balanced the rights and solved inefficient regulatory consequences for both branded and generic drug makers. Forever known as the Hatch-Waxman Act (formally, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act),…
Patent Docs 