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 — The Federal Circuit continued its recent willingness to affirm findings of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (see, e.g., "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)"), in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC. The case came to the Court after ANDA litigation over Galderma's low dose…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Recently, the Federal Circuit has taken up issues relating to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) and a related doctrine, prosecution history estoppel (PHE), that limits the scope of equivalents that can be asserted under DOE. See, e.g., Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.; Amgen Inc. v. Coherus…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Transitional terms in patent law (conventionally, "comprising," "consisting of," and the more arcane "consisting essentially of") have their own provenance and meaning, denoting limitations that are "open" (comprising) or "closed" (consisting). But how should a court construe instances where these terms seem to be at odds with one another? The…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen 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 Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen 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 — The Federal Circuit had the opportunity to interpret the extent to which the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) require the practice of the patented method that produces a product whose importation imposes infringement liability under the statute to be practiced by a single entity (it does not) in rendering…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit has grappled with, divisively in some instances, the extent to which the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) extend to activities not strictly for obtaining regulatory approval, such as post-approval quality testing and "stockpiling" product used for commercial purposes. For example, in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.…
-
By Daniel Boehnen — Last month, the United States government, acting on behalf of its Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), filed suit in Delaware against Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC for infringing four patents covering inventions developed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The patents all…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — "Everything you say can be held against you" is a trope in crime shows from the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Ireland (stated in various ways), and a recent decision by the Federal Circuit regarding preclusion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents by prosecution history estoppel is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One person's attempt at judicial economy can be another person's impermissible shortcut, and when it arises in the context of a summary judgment motion of noninfringement, it can amount to legal (or at least procedural) error on appeal. Such is the case in NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc., decided last week…
Patent Docs 