Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
about
Category: Obviousness
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS v. Rimfrost AS, the Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,028,877 and claims 1-20 of 9,078,905 to be unpatentable as obvious. The '877…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit overturned an obviousness determination in an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex Inc. The Court also reaffirmed its holdings in earlier-decided cases that applying the IPR portion of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to patents…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit applied the constitutional principle under Article III that there must be a case or controversy for a federal court to enter judgment (in this case, of invalidity) in ANDA litigation that can be vitiated by a statutory disclaimer of patent claims prior to judgment. The Court also…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197 to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness, in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2019). Because Enzo raised the issue du jour,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit reversed findings of non-obviousness and affirmed (over Chief Judge Prost's dissent) a finding that claims asserted in ANDA litigation were not invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement in Nalproprion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. ANDA litigation arose over Nalproprion Pharma's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The interplay (or perhaps utilization) of inter partes review (IPR) in ANDA litigation was illustrated by the Federal Circuit in last month's Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Generico, LLC nonprecedential decision. The case arose over U.S. Patent No. 8,865,688 owned by Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and exclusively licensed to Salix. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions from four separate trials in the District of Delaware involving seven different defendants regarding validity and infringement of patents directed to an opioid addiction treatment in Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A. The case arose in ANDA litigation over Indivior's suboxone film…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the circumstances wherein an inter partes review petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in Mayne Pharma Int'l v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., decided earlier this month, and as a bonus, illustrated how including disclosure in a specification for completeness and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit exhibited the current status of its obviousness jurisprudence in affirming the District Court's determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,410,131 were not obvious in a decision handed down this week in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int'l. The case arose in ANDA litigation…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court that Defendants Actavis LLC and Teva Pharmaceuticals did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the claims asserted by Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mallinckrodt LLC were obvious, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC, over a strong…
Patent Docs 