Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- USPTO Moves to Protect Design Rights for Digital Innovations
- 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
about
Category: Obviousness
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continued its explication both of the contours of obviousness for pharmaceutical formulations after KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. as well as how it exercises its supervisory powers over the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after Dickinson v. Zurko, in a decision last Friday, In re Huai-Hunk…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Friday, in Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the District Court for the District of Nevada on summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,320,969 were nonobvious, determining that the District Court erred in its obviousness analysis. The Federal…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its fourth annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2010, we identified a dozen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on biotech/pharma patent…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Matrix Laboratories, Ltd., decided last Thursday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the District Court for the District of New Jersey that Matrix Laboratories, Ltd., Mylan Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Mylan") failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an update to its obviousness guidelines, publishing a notice in the Federal Register (75 Fed. Reg. 53644) that highlights case law developments on obviousness since the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The update supplements the Office's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The old proverb "success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan" comes to mind when considering the Federal Circuit's decision in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In the Court's decision, repeated failures, even by Lilly scientists in developing its osteoporosis drug Evista® (raloxifene hydrochloride), were…
-
Inherent Anticipation and Inherent Obviousness? By Andrew Williams — Last week, in King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,407,128 (the "'128 patent") and 6,683,102 (the "'102 patent"), although not necessarily for the same reasons articulated by the U.S. District…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Monday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted an ex parte reexamination request for U.S. Patent No. 5,925,803, the latest-filed and last-granted member of the Harvard Oncomouse patent family. Remarkable about the petition is that the third party requester (TPR), Ellen Gonzales of Gonzales Patent Services, contends that…
-
Further Adventures in Obviousness and Inequitable Conduct By Kevin E. Noonan — In Purdue Pharma Products L.P. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit exercised its prerogative to illustrate its fractured jurisprudence on two issues, obviousness and inequitable conduct, in a (fortunately) nonprecedential decision. Contrary to its Congressional mandate to bring jurisprudential consistency to…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit, in In re Arora, affirmed a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the rejection of claims 11-16 of Appellant Arun Arora's application as being obvious in view of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,978,286 and 5,934,273. Claims 11-16 of Dr. Arora's application…
Patent Docs 