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 — The Federal Circuit, and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals before it, generally reviewed decisions by the Patent and Trademark Office under the same standard applied to district court decisions, whether the factual basis for the decision was "clearly erroneous" (questions of law were, and are, decided de novo),…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, the Federal Circuit overturned a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims in the challenged patent were not invalid for obviousness. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,554,579, is directed to…
-
By Michael Borella — The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of the references. The inherent subjectivity of such an analysis can…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a terse, non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment that Defendants Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Indoco Remedies Ltd. had failed to prove that the claims asserted by Plaintiff/patentee Takeda were obvious, either under the statute or the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, in Takeda Pharmaceutical…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — While much has been written about the effect of the post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (2012) in invalidating U.S. patents, the change in the law most responsible for how easy it has become to invalidate patents is arguably the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the Examiner's rejection of certain claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/789,280 as obvious. The rejected claims of the '280 application are directed to methods of making a low-carbohydrate…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed under Rule 36 the decision by the District Court of Nevada (Du, J.) in March that the claims asserted by Amarin Pharma against West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. were invalid for obviousness, in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit recently applied well-established principles of obviousness in affirming the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's invalidation of several patents related to antifungal formulations in Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The subject matter of the claimed invention was a topical formulation of 1,3-dihydro-5-fluoro-1-hydroxy-2,1-benzoxaborole (known as tavaborole): and…
-
Common Sense Prevails By Joseph Herndon — B/E Aerospace, Inc. appealed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found certain claims of B/E's aircraft lavatory-related patents obvious. B/E contended that the Board's decision is erroneous because the Board incorporated a claim limitation that is not present in the prior…
-
By Joshua Rich — Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review. Thus, while the merits of the case will have…
Patent Docs 