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: Infringement – Literal or DOE
-
By Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the second of a pair of decisions issued last Friday, styled Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding by the District Court that the generic ANDA challenger had not shown the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were obvious, but reversed the District Court's finding…
-
Barr does not infringe, Alcon's patents not invalid By Kevin E. Noonan — In ANDA litigation between branded drug maker Alcon Research and generic drugmaker Barr Laboratories, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court finding of non-infringement and reversed a finding of invalidity for failure to satisfy either the enablement or written description requirements of…
-
By Andrew Williams — A claim term that can have different meanings or values depending on the method used to measure it renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible for a potential infringer to discern the boundaries of the claim. This is because it is not possible to determine whether potential infringing activity will…
-
By Andrew Williams — On May 20, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. case (Supreme Court docket number 12-1128). The sole issue on appeal is encapsulated by the question presented: QUESTION PRESENTED: In Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137 (2007), this Court ruled that a…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Whether ANDA litigation has had a positive or negative impact on generic drug availability is an open question, in view of several recent reports looking at the effects such litigation has had on both branded and generic drugs over the past thirty years. Indeed, the current squabble over "reverse payment"…
-
By Andrew Williams — Late last year, in AstraZeneca v. Aurobindo (In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation), the Federal Circuit affirmed that a reissue patent covering the active ingredient of Crestor® was valid, enforceable, and infringed by all parties. In so doing, the Court discussed what it meant to be the submitter of an ANDA…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, in Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that two patents that describe treating migraines by combining two known drugs in a single dose had not been shown to be obvious or inadequately…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Five years ago, the Supreme Court abrogated (in a footnote) the Federal Circuit's "reasonable apprehension of suit" standard governing when a plaintiff could bring a declaratory judgment suit against a patentee, typically for non-infringement and/or invalidity or unenforceability. The policy reason for the decision was reasonable, particularly for a Court…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The doctrine of equivalents, and the extent to which prosecution history estoppel limits application of the doctrine, was perhaps the issue that prompted the Supreme Court to start its decade-long review (and, generally, reversal) of Federal Circuit precedent (in cases like eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., KSR Int'l Co. v.…
Patent Docs 