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 Andrew Williams — On Monday, in Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against ANDA-filer Lupin that blocked its sale of generic Fortamet, and remanded the case to the District Court for the District of Delaware for further processing. In so doing, the Federal Circuit reiterated the holding…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a dissent from the Federal Circuit's affirmance of a Board determination of obviousness, Judge Newman raises a jurisdictional and separation-of-powers argument in In re Baxter International, Inc. that is destined to be decided by the Supreme Court. Specifically, what power does the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reversed a finding of obviousness in Eurand Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (under the caption In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation), taking the occasion to expound on both the proper consideration of the evidence proffered to support an obviousness determination as well as the evidentiary…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Monday, in Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the differences between obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting for a chemical composition-of-matter invention. Specifically, a new chemical compound is prima facie obvious if (1) a chemist of ordinary skill would have selected prior art compounds as a lead…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in In re Mousa, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences sustaining the invalidity of U.S. Application No. 10/667,216 for anticipation and obviousness. The '216 application is directed to chemically fractured and modified heparin. Heparin, an anticoagulant typically used to prevent blood clots…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The effects of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. continue to ripple unpredictably through the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence, promoting inconsistencies in obviousness determinations by the Court that seem contrary to its mandate to harmonize U.S. patent law. The most recent illustration of this effect is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reaffirmed the primacy of the factual disclosures used to establish obviousness, and how deficiencies thereof can defeat an obviousness claim, in reversing an invalidity determination in Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. It also showed how persistently defendants pursue the tarnish of inequitable conduct even…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today issued its ruling in Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., and the decision illustrates the extent of the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. on the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence. In addition, the decision provides a contrast between how…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York finding that Defendants-Appellants Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Pliva-Hrvatska d.o.o. ("Barr") infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,214,052. The '052 patent, which is assigned to Plaintiff-Appellee Mitsubishi Chemical Corp., relates to argatroban solutions containing ethanol, water,…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, in Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision on summary judgment by the District Court for the District of New Jersey that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954 were invalid for obviousness. Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc. ("Tyco") own the…
Patent Docs 