Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
- Federal Circuit Refuses to Switch District Court’s Finding for Nintendo
- Supreme Court to Resolve Dispute Over Marketing of “Skinny Labeled” Generics
- Solicitor General Proves Persuasive; Supreme Court Grants Hikma’s Certiorari Petition
- CNIPA Implements Inventor ID Requirement
about
Category: Obviousness
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In its recent review of a district court decision the Federal Circuit characterized as "a thorough opinion," the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidation for obviousness of four claims from four different Orange Book-listed patents in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The case arose in ANDA litigation involving Vanda's tasimelteon…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – An appellant's burden on appeal is never easy but it is particularly difficult when the questions at issue are based on factual evidence. The appellate judiciary is loathe (generally) to second guess a district court judge on factual matters, in deference to the judge's experience in observing the demeanor of the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment of invalidity for obviousness and for noninfringement for a series of patents challenged in ANDA litigation, in Genentech Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. In doing so, a majority of the panel illustrated perhaps unintentionally how initial impressions regarding the issues before the Court…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – On November 15th, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion affirming all aspects of the District Court's decision in Pharmacyclics LLC v. Alvogen, Inc. The case illustrates once more the importance of the clear error standard in support of factual aspects of a district court's decision, even regarding ultimate questions of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) Final Written Decision (FWD) in an inter partes review (IPR) that Mylan Pharmaceuticals failed to show the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 were either anticipated or rendered obvious by the asserted prior art, in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck…
-
By Michael Borella — Can a prior art reference with an error be considered to be a disclosure of the erroneous teaching? A Federal Circuit panel split over this issue, with their disagreement largely based on how apparent the error would be to one skilled in the art. LG filed two Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Almost four years ago, in a relatively rare occurrence based on there being an insufficient factual record to permit proper appellate review, the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court decision rendering invalid the claims in five patents asserted by Tris Pharma, Inc. against Teva Laboratories FL, Inc. and remanded. The…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last month in Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determinations in six inter partes review proceedings that invalidated the challenged claims for being obvious. The claims of the challenged patents were directed to methods for producing phytases (enzymes that help…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Earlier today, the Federal Circuit reversed the Final Written Decision, and reconsideration of that decision, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which determined that claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The '138 patent is directed to methods…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One of the casualties of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012 was 35 U.S.C. § 145, which had provided recourse to U.S. District Courts for U.S. patent applicants disgruntled with a determination of unpatentability before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but was abrogated under certain circumstances (e.g., IPRs)…
Patent Docs 