Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Tagged federal circuit · clear
Federal Circuit Summary Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech…
Federal Circuit Summary Summary: Even if a patentee’s initial complaint was reasonable, the patentee can be liable for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if it does not reassess the merits of its case in view of new controlling law. In December…
Arctic Cat v. Bombardier deals with obviousness, patent marking, reasonable royalties, willfulness and enhanced damages. The panel affirms all of the district court’s rulings other than as to patent marking, which it remands for the district court to…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Moore, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Summary: In challenging compliance with the marking requirement of § 287(a), an accused infringer need only…
I am going to try to summarize the Fed. Cir.’s holding and reasoning in Promega Corp. v. Life Tech Corp., Appeal No. 2013-1011 et al. (Fed. Cir., November 13, 2017) , without burying you in the procedural details, but it won’t be easy. In…
Last week, in BASF v. Johnson Matthey, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the phrase “effective to catalyze” rendered claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. Given the prevalence of “effective” language in U.S.…
No Duty to Discuss Closest Prior Art…But you Probably Should Anyway In implementing the Federal Circuit’s In Re Aqua Products’ holding, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) explains that “practice and procedure before the Board…
Federal Circuit Summaries Before PROST, WALLACH, and TARANTO. Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: (1) A party may not avoid inducement based on “substantial non-infringing uses,” and (2) prosecution history estoppel does not apply to…
On October 16, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims in Secured Mail Solutions LLC, v. Universal Wilde, Inc . (“Secured Mail”) were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.…
In view of the IP hornets’ nest stirred up by Judge Bryson’s ruling in Allergan and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Teva Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (E.D. Tex. , Oct. 16, 2017) , which may or may not have mooted the Tribe’s…
Tribal Immunity Considered by PTAB Previously I explained that the 7th amendment argument in Oil States and the 11th amendment argument for sovereign immunity from the PTAB are both tied to the same basic, threshold premise — IPR is a trial…
On October 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR holding all claims unpatentable after the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. The PTAB reversed their original patentability…
