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 waded into the question of patent ownership in a dispute between a patent attorney and Applera-Applied Biosystems over patents involving nucleic acid sequencing technology in Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc. The case is unusual in at least three respects: the inventor is a lawyer, not a…
-
The Standard of Reviewing Obviousness Determinations from the USPTO By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determination that the claims in U.S. Application No. 09/719,045 were obvious on Thursday, in deciding In re Chapman. The CAFC's decision addressed not only the proper obviousness…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its third annual list of top biotech/pharma stories. For 2009, we identified ten top stories that we covered on Patent Docs last year. Today, we count down stories #10, #9, and #8. On Sunday, we will present stories…
-
By Christopher P. Singer — As widely publicized, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos launched a blog earlier this month that is intended to engage the public and provide updates regarding USPTO news (see "Director Kappos Joins Blogger Ranks"). In an article posted on November 24, 2009, Director Kappos announced that the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — The Federal Circuit today vacated-in-part and affirmed-in-part an order by the District Court for the District of New Jersey granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Reissued Patent No. 39,221 based on anticipation and obviousness. Plaintiff-Appellant Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. owns the '221 patent, which relates to a tramadol and acetaminophen…
-
Common Sense, Perhaps, But Whose? By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. established a standard (such as it is) of "common sense" in evaluating whether an invention is obvious. If the Court had been careful to follow the statute, it might have stressed more carefully that…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In a Breakout Session entitled "The Narrowing Scope of Biotech Patent Claims: What Does It Mean for the Industry?" at last week's BIO International Convention, a panel consisting of Anne Dollard, the Deputy General Counsel and Chief Patent Counsel for Takeda San Francisco; Thomas Kim, Senior Director of Intellectual Property…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the District of New Jersey denying a request by Altana Pharma and Wyeth (collectively "Altana") for a preliminary injunction to prevent Teva Pharmaceuticals ("Teva") from marketing a generic version of the antiulcer drug Protonix®. The active ingredient…
-
By Donald Zuhn — The Federal Circuit today affirmed a determination by the District Court for the District of Delaware that U.S. Patent No. 5,583,122 was not invalid as obvious nor invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. The '122 patent, which is owned by Plaintiff-Appellee Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G), relates to the compound risedronate,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Two pronouncements, one from the Supreme Court and the other from the Federal Circuit, portend the parlous state that could await American innovation should judges come to believe that that their judgment is as sound as that of actual innovators. From the Federal Circuit's In re Kubin decision (citing…
Patent Docs 