
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: Obviousness
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — After creating something of a frisson due to the apprehension that the Federal Circuit might be convinced to re-evaluate whether it was a necessary element for establishing obviousness for the skilled artisan to have had a reasonable expectation of success (see "U.S. Patent Office Challenges the Reasonable Expectation of Success Prong…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a history of attempting to challenge judicial decisions that the Office, usually for its own policy reasons, takes issue with.[1] Recently, the Office decided to challenge the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex for certain technologies, specifically by advocating that…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, federal courts (including the Federal Circuit) are compelled under the Administrative Procedures Act to review factual determinations by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under a substantial evidence standard. The consequences of this standard are illustrated (once again) in the Federal…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Zealous advocacy is a hallmark of adversarial proceedings, whether in district court or before the USPTO, where the opportunities for such advocacy have multiplied with the establishment by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of inter partes review or IPRs (and to a lesser extent post-grant review or PGRs). But sometimes such advocacy…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit handed down an opinion earlier this month that invalidated several asserted claims and found infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) of the claims, while refusing to modify its judgment on infringement after Defendant Norwich submitted a revised ANDA containing a Section viii "carveout" in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In its recent decision in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. the Federal Circuit reminds us that most verities in patent law are not eternal and are frequently subject to case-by-case interpretation, in this case the purported verity being that reciting the indefinite article ("a") in a patent claim is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – A preliminary injunction is one of the most potent weapons in a patent plaintiff's arsenal, being capable of shutting down an accused infringer's continued infringement, prohibiting the infringing product from the stream of commerce, and forcing (or at least strongly motivating) a defendant to settlement. Being so powerful, such injunctions are not…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Cardiovalve Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., which has as its most significant aspect an unnecessary untethering of obviousness with evidence…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. The case arose in two IPR proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413, owned…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in five inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were obvious. In light of the Office's promulgation of Guidance to…