Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 2017-1690 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) (Roche), marks yet another decision from the Federal Circuit affirming invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101 of diagnostic claims.
In E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit recently reversed a finding of non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR) decision issued by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (board).
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changes the landscape for defendants in patent infringement cases, and in certain circumstances may limit their ability to challenge a plaintiff’s patent using the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding established in 2012.
Currently, to maintain or renew a United States trademark registration, the registrant must file a Declaration of Use stating the mark is in use in commerce in connection with each listed good or service in the registration.
On appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the board’s decision in two related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that Petitioner, Medtronic, Inc., failed to establish obviousness of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,670,358 (the ’358 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,776,072 (the ’072 Patent). The Federal Circuit held that the board erred in concluding that a video and a binder containing relevant portions of certain slides, which were distributed at various programs in 2003, are not prior art on the grounds that the video and slides were not sufficiently accessible to the public. The Court asserted that the board failed to consider all of the relevant factors in determining whether or not the video and slides are a printed publication within the meaning of 35 USC § 102.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision dealing with patent damages for lost sales in foreign jurisdictions. WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 586 U.S. ____ (June 22, 2018), Case No. 16-1011 (Thomas J). The Court concluded that U.S. patent owners can get damages from overseas sales lost through infringement.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the office) recently issued guidance on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu on post-grant patent proceedings, specifically inter partes review.
Intellectual property (IP) attorneys (both in-house and outside counsel) are increasingly turning to outsourcing and offshoring to complete many patent-related tasks, such as prior art searches, patent drafting, formalizing patent drawings, and general patent prosecution.
This past October, in Amgen v. Sanofi (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit sent shivers down the spine of the biotechnology industry when it overturned a district court decision confirming the validity of two patents that claim antibodies for lowering cholesterol.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again took up the issue of liability for divided infringement, re-affirming its prior precedent and clarifying the requirements for holding an alleged infringer directly liable for a third party’s actions.
For some savvy patent owners, enforcing patent rights through European Union (EU) courts has been a valuable tool in their efforts to extract value from their patent portfolios, whether those strategies focus on market exclusivity or monetization.