Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Tagged federal circuit · clear
Written by Peter Heuser, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt The Circuit grants a rehearing and revises its decision in ‎ Asetek to vacate the ‎overly broad portion of an injunction. ‎In ‎ Wasica , the Circuit refuses to permit a party to present…
In In re Chudik, [2016-1817] (March 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that claims 1, 15, 18, and 33–40 of U.S. Patent Application 11/525,631 on an implant for shoulder replacement surgery were anticipated. The…
Guest Post: SCA v. First Quality With TC Heartland still on deck a the Supreme Court, a look back at the Court's most recent patent decision SCA v. First Quality by guest poster, Gary Cohen. Some of my thoughts, are posted on IPwatchdog ( here ). Back…
Written by Peter Heuser, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt In Chudik the Circuit rules that no substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of ‎anticipation since the ruling is based on a significant and impermissible modification of the…
Written by Rebecca L. Wright , Ph.D. and Eric Furman , Ph.D. In an ongoing set of disputes in Oregon between farmers and corporations that hold GMO patents, farmers may be given a new tool. Oregon House Bill 2739[1] “allows a cause of action against…
Written by Eric Y. Zhou and Vlad Teplitskiy Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Diehr that while patent claims directed solely to abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas, are not patent eligible, a claim containing a…
In Thales Visionix, Inc., v. U.S., [2015-5150] (March 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 were directed to patent ineligible subject…
Written by Peter Heuser, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt In Nidec v. Zhongshan , the panel reverses a determination of anticipation, noting that the Circuit’s Kennametal case does not stand for the proposition that anticipation can be found even when a…
Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, finding that Watson’s generic version of LIALDA® did not infringe U.S. patent 6,773,720 (“the ‘720 patent”). In particular, the…
Written by Chang Lim and Lincoln S. Essig The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association . [ 1 ] In…
In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc. , [2016-1755] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 on a system whereby a user can identify a supplier of goods or services over the…
It has been a busy week at the Circuit. In Comcast v. Sprint the Circuit affirms a $7.5 million ‎judgment that includes prejudgment interest running from the date of the first-to-issue patent ‎instead of apportioning the interest based on the issue…
