The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Senju Phamaceutical Co. v. Lubin Limited , that the district court’s finding of obviousness of the patented invention at issue was correct and did not give any deference to the subsequent finding during an ex parte reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the claimed invention was […]
Archive for the 'Patent Law' Category
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v Sandoz, Inc., holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error”, rather than a de novo, standard when reviewing a district court’s claim construction findings. The opinion can be read here Teva v Sandoz
Scientific Plastic Products v Biotage
In Scientific Plastic Products, Inc. v. Biotage, AB, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the Patent Examiner’s rejection based on obviousness and the cancellation of all the claims in three patents. The Federal Circuit found that the art relied upon in the obviousness rejection was analogous […]
Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International
The US Supreme Court held in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International that patent claims drawn to an abstract idea with generic computer implementation are invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter. The US Supreme Court opinion can be found here Alice Corp v CLS Bank International
Limelight Networks v Akamai Technologies
The US Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that a defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement if no one has directly infringed the patent. Thus, when claims are being drafted, particular importance should be placed on assessing whether more than one entity be responsible for providing different steps […]
Nautilis v Biosig
The US Supreme Court in Nautilis, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. held a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with a reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The US Supreme Court rejected the […]
Medtronic v Mirowski
The US Supreme Court recently held that when a licensee files a declaratory judgement against a patentee claiming that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of proving infringement. The Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit, which had concluded that the licensee plaintiff bore the burden of proof since […]
Motorola Mobility v ITC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in Motorola Mobility LLC v. International Trade Commission that Motorola Mobility violated Sec. 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling mobile devices that infringed a Microsoft patent. Because Motorola’s argument that the claim in question was anticipated by inherency failed to […]
Medtronic v Boston Scientific
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2013 in the declaratory judgement case of Medtronic v Boston Scientific. The oral arguments focused on whether the plaintiff in a declaratory judgement action has the burden of proof of non-infringement or whether the historical burden that the patent holder prove patent infringement applies. The […]
Lifescan v Shasta
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction, originally granted by the district court on a finding of likely indirect infringement, because the defendant had established patent exhaustion as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit held that the patent exhaustion principal applies to all transfers, even as […]