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: Obviousness
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — That it is more difficult today to be a patentee able to defend her patent rights than any time since the 1940's is nicely illustrated by the Federal Circuit's decision in Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where the patentee prevailed only to face almost certain defeat on remand.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On September 2nd, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) entered judgment in an inter partes review styled Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. (IPR 2012-00022). The Board found that Ariosa demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 19, 20, 24,…
-
By Michael Greenfield — In a not particularly well-written opinion that breaks no new ground, the Federal Circuit considered a consolidated appeal of two patents directed to methods of promoting hair growth, including, in particular, eyelash hair growth using compounds and analogs that were previously known for their utility in treating glaucoma. Allergan had asserted…
-
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…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court has made a sport of reversing the Federal Circuit over the past decade or so, and other than reserved (and sometimes not so reserved) statements by members of the lower court, the Federal Circuit has (properly) deferred to the Supreme Court's decisions without much protest (albeit occasionally…
-
By Jon Schuchardt* — Nothing endures but change. –HeraclitusPlus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. –Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr When I was your age, and Pluto was a planet, "obvious to try" was not the standard for evaluating patentability under 35 USC § 103. In KSR v. Teleflex, the US Supreme Court qualified this by rejecting the…
-
By Michael Greenfield — On April 21, 2014, a Federal Circuit panel reiterated its interpretation and application to the chemical arts of the KSR obviousness standard. Although applicable more broadly than the chemical arts, the opinion may be of particular interest to patent prosecutors in this technology field. A jury found the patent at issue…
-
By Michael Greenfield — Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Hoffman La-Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc. that is a cautionary tale of patent lifecycle and the difficulties those seeking to extend patent protection face — namely the blooming of prior art relating to an approved product. The patents at issue in this…
-
By Andrew Williams — Earlier this month, on March 6, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") issued three related inter partes review opinions, marking the first set of opinions related to either the Biotech or Pharmaceutical industry. The cases were IPR2012-00006, IPR2012-00007, and IPR2013-00011, and the parties were Illumina, Inc. (Petitioner) and The Trustees of Columbia…
-
By Andrew Williams — The standard of review at the Federal Circuit is important. Even though it often appears like cases are re-litigated at the Appeals Court, it is actually very difficult (or at least should be) to overturn a lower court's factual determinations. This is especially true for a finding that a patent was…
Patent Docs 