Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- 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
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
about
Category: Infringement – Literal or DOE
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The tortured path that the Federal Circuit has taken (a path also trodden by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the district courts) of applying the patent eligibility decisions under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. is illustrated in a 2-1…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 11th annual list of top patent stories. For 2017, we identified nineteen 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 — Last week, in Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court for the District of Connecticut accurately interpreted the Federal Circuit's decision in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp. (Enzo II), 780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015), concerning the proper construction of the claims in…
-
The UK Supreme Court's judgment in Lilly v Actavis has profound implications for the scope of protection provided by patent claims in the UK. The judgment moves away from the principle that the patentee should enjoy the full extent, but no more than the full extent, of the monopoly that a reasonable person skilled in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed the rare event of a preliminary injunction being granted in a lawsuit over a chemical invention, made rarer still by the evidence of likelihood of success on the merits required for the injunction being based on the doctrine of equivalents. And in the opinion,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court spent an inordinate amount of time wrestling with each of their conceptions of the scope and application of the doctrine of equivalents a dozen years ago, coming to an accommodation in the last of the Federal Circuit's decisions in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu…
-
Lesson for Defendant-Appellee's: Provide Responsive Arguments on Appeal By Joseph Herndon — On January 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an Opinion in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc. in which the judgment of the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial on infringement. Avid asserted two patents against…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's finding of invalidity and non-infringement in ANDA litigation between Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz. In so doing, the Court deferred to the factual determinations made by the lower court for no clear error and agreed on de novo review with the District…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan & Michael Borella — The Federal Circuit handed down a unanimous en banc decision today regarding the interplay between literal infringement and induced infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. On remand from a disapproving reversal by the Supreme Court, the en banc court took notice of the "opportunity"…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit has availed itself of another opportunity to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz may be relevant in cases that are the exception rather than the rule. The Federal Circuit's decision in Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci Inc. affirmed the District Court's…
Patent Docs 