Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Tagged federal circuit · clear
In Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg North American Co., [2015-2082, 2015-2084] (September 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Kraft’s U.S. Patent No. 6,918,532 was invalid for obviousness, but was not…
Written by Damien Howard and Ronald J. Schoenbaum The Federal Circuit recently decided a patent subject-matter eligibility case relating to computer memory in Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp. In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district…
PTAB Precedent (Not Surprisingly) Embraces CAFC Precedent As I pointed out last week, it is a heavy lift for the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to designate a precedential decision . For this reason, nothing but the most straightforward of issues can…
PTAB Expanded Panels Impact Less Than 1% of All AIA Trials Last week the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. (here) The decision affirmed the USPTO’s Patent Trial…
Written by Peter E. Heuser , Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt In Nidec v. Zhongshan , the entire panel affirms a determination of obviousness but two judges question whether § 315(c) of the AIA was improperly used to permit joinder as to a second Zhongshan…
Written by Jordan M. Cox and Nathanael Luman, Ph.D. The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III…
In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., [2016-1115, 2016-1116, 2016-1842] (August 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s award of attorneys fees to Romag under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but not under the identically…
In The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics , the Fed. Cir. panel held that a claim to a diagnostic method for determining a test subject’s risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CD) by comparing MPO levels in the bodily…
Written by Peter E. Heuser , Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid , the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag…
In Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., [2016-1511] (August 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that Whirlpool’s U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 relating to a household blender was not anticipated by U.S. Patent…
Written by Jane Xia and Jing Liu, Ph.D. MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. SANDOZ INC (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017) (NEWMAN, Mayer, O’Malley) This case arose out of an ANDA litigation between Millennium and a number of generic-drug companies who sought…
Before reading this post, please read my post of July 19, 2017 about Millennium Pharms. v. Sandoz , and you will “get” the title. Judges Lourie and Newman both dissented from refusal of the court to rehear the holding in Schering v. Geneva en…
