After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims
This case addresses[1] the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a party’s waiver of a doctrine-of-equivalents theory in an initial lawsuit extends to a subsequent case involving a newer iteration of the technology previously litigated.Continue Reading Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. Each of the patents asserted by Celanese had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016, and as a result are governed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”).Continue Reading Celanese v. ITC: How the On-Sale Bar Can Turn Sweet Sales into Spoiled Patents
Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims, such that an exception to the one-year time-bar on interference proceedings applies, and (2) whether Bates’ pre-critical claim language materially differed from his post-critical claim language, which dictates whether his claims were time-barred.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings
This Federal Circuit opinion addresses a district court’s decision granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.[1] Continue Reading Understanding Preliminary Injunction: A Review of a Recent Federal Circuit Decision
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC, Nos. 2022-1905, 2022-1970 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2024) addressed several issues, including: (1) what evidence of litigation misconduct may support a finding of unclean hands, barring relief for related claims, (2) the appropriate legal analysis for finding a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO, (3) how to appropriately construe disputed facts underlying obviousness determinations at the summary judgment stage, and (4) the legal standard and timing for determinations of “prevailing party,” “exceptional case,” and “closeness” of the case, which underlie awards of attorney’s fees and costs.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Requisite Analysis for Unclean Hands, Inequitable Conduct, Summary Judgement Determinations of Obviousness, and Awards of Fees and Costs
This decision[1] emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B).Continue Reading The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Meaning of “Publicly Disclosed”
In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the court addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits such arguments on appeal to the Federal Circuit. This case also addresses what an appellant must show to have claim construction arguments considered on the merits on appeal.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Waiver Regulations for Rehearings Before the PTAB
This article was first published by ALM / Law.com in The Intellectual Property StrategistContinue Reading LLM Customization with a Path to Human Inventorship and Patent Rights
The case of Amarin Pharma, Inc. and its affiliates versus Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC presents a fascinating intersection of patent law, FDA regulatory strategy, and pharmaceutical marketing. Central to this legal dispute are U.S. Patents 9,700,537 and 10,568,861, owned by Amarin, which describe methods of reducing cardiovascular risk by administering icosapent ethyl, a compound found in the drug Vascepa®. Vascepa® had initially received FDA approval for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition marked by high levels of triglycerides in the blood. However, Amarin’s continued research into the drug’s benefits led to an expanded FDA approval in 2019, allowing Vascepa® to be marketed for reducing cardiovascular risk in certain patient populations.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Provides Insight on Induced Infringement Claims in Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The USPTO has published updated patent eligibility guidance (effective July 17, 2024) for AI-related inventions to help determine subject matter eligibility under 35 § U.S.C. 101. This guidance is timely as roughly 20% of all recent patent filings are AI related. It is important to note that based on prior guidance from February 2024, if an AI tool itself invents something, that is not patentable. Only inventions with significant human contribution are patentable. Thus, this does not preclude AI-assisted inventions. This February guidance was supplemented in April 2024 with AI guidance for practitioners and a request for comments on the impact of AI on certain patentability considerations, including what qualifies as prior art and the assessment of the level of ordinary skills in the art. The period for comments remains open until July 29, 2024.Continue Reading USPTO Issues AI Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance