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 echoes of the Supreme Court’s recent spate of reversing the Federal Circuit continue to reverberate, and perhaps nowhere so loudly as in the Federal Circuit’s developing declaratory judgment jurisprudence. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say in the total collapse of that jurisprudence: in a…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court for the District of New Jersey properly construed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,513,006 to encompass Plaintiff-Appellee Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s epilepsy drug topiramate, and affirmed the District Court’s decision to (1) permanently enjoin Defendants-Appellees Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Judge Peter G. Sheridan, presiding) found after a bench trial on all issues that Bayer’s U.S. Patent 6,787,531 was invalid for obviousness. In doing so, the Court’s decision illustrated anew the uncertainties that the U.S. Supreme…
-
Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reissued as precedential) By Robert Dailey — Much of patent law depends on the attributes of the hypothetical "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA). Particularly, claim construction and obviousness determinations depend on how the court defines PHOSITA for the patent-in-suit. Nevertheless, Federal…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The contours of the Federal Circuit’s obviousness jurisprudence post-KSR continued to be revealed today with the CAFC’s decision in Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd. The Federal Circuit reversed a finding in the District Court that the Aventis claims were non-obvious, based on what it termed a…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today affirmed a District Court finding that ANDA filer Ivax Pharmaceuticals and co-Defendant Cipla had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Forest Laboratories’ patent-in-suit for Lexapro® was invalid. In doing so, the CAFC answered (for now) the question of whether a patent on…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Easily lost in the understandable outrage over the new PTO continuation rules, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is proceeding to chart the metes and bounds of the PTO’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (see Patent Docs report). Fortunately,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences recently got its long awaited opportunity to opine on the continued validity of the Federal Circuit’s In re Deuel decision in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Deuel is widely acknowledged (and decried…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit reversed a District Court judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (the ‘741 patent) was not invalid. In particular, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court clearly erred in determining the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and as a result,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit invalidated two patents this week on obviousness grounds, overturning a jury verdict that had survived a JMOL motion to the District Court. Surprising about the decision was that it merely referenced KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. as an affirmation of its own jurisprudence, while…
Patent Docs 