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 — Last week, in Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review that claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 were not unpatentable for obviousness. In affirming the Board's…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed determinations by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two inter partes reviews that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624 are not unpatentable in view of the prior art…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the claims of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,551 challenged in inter partes review were not unpatentable for obviousness, in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. The claims of the '551…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last week, in In re Ikeda Food Research Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the Examiner's rejection in an ex parte reexamination of claims 22 and 23 of U.S. Application No. 12/851,668 for obviousness. On appeal before…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit recently reviewed yet another decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH, and once again reviewed whether a failed petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding had standing to appeal…
-
By Nicole Grimm, George "Trey" Lyons, III, and Brett Scott — On January 3, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision in Insys Development Co., Inc. v. GW Pharma Ltd. (IPR2017-00503), a landmark inter partes review (IPR) decision involving a cannabis patent. Although the PTAB…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — A certain amount of comment has recently been evinced from the patent bar by the voicing from several members of the Federal Circuit, including the Chief Judge, of their dismay over the number of patent cases coming to the Court. In particular, this increase in the patent case census in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reversed a finding of non-obviousness in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an inter partes review, in an opinion handed down Monday in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. The patent was directed to methods for oxidizing 5-hydroxymethylfurfural or derivatives…
-
By John E. Conour — Even with billions of dollars of funding and the cumulative knowledge and experience of over a hundred years of experimental pharmacology, de novo discovery of effective and safe therapeutics remains a costly and risky endeavor. The number of unsuccessful attempts to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The varying appellate fortunes of patentees regarding the question of obviousness is illustrated nicely in the Federal Circuit decision in Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC handed down earlier this month. The statute, 35 U.S.C. § 103, was intended to tether the question of obviousness to the prior art (and…
Patent Docs 