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
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.
In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards.Continue Reading The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees
In Intellectual Tech v. Zebra Technologies 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024), the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s determination that the patent owner plaintiff lacked constitutional standing because it was divested of all exclusionary rights over the patent at issue upon default.Continue Reading Understanding Constitutional Standing: A Review of a Recent Federal Circuit Decision
In Virtek Visions international ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., DBA Aligned Vision Nos. 2022-1998, 2022-2022 (Fed Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), the Federal Circuit reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings regarding patent obviousness for U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734. Specifically, appellate review of the Board’s findings related to the motivation to combine analysis.Continue Reading Conclusory Assertions Won’t Cut It: Federal Circuit Provides Further Insight into the Motivation to Combine Analysis
In SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, the Federal Circuit found that a district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment defendant based on the defendant’s sending an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement to the declaratory judgment plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff infringed the defendant’s patents by selling products through Amazon into the state.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds Personal Jurisdiction in an Amazon Product Dispute
Allegations in a complaint may be insufficient to raise a factual dispute under Step 2 of Alice when a patent’s specification contradicts those allegations by using the claimed technology in a way that demonstrates a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the technology as routine, conventional, or well-known.Continue Reading Alice Step 2 May be Satisfied by a Patent’s Description and use of Claimed Technology
In Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, 2023-1194 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), the Federal Circuit reaffirms that a patent claim that includes narrowing limitations requiring only some elements of a Markush group recited in the same claim are not indefinite under Section 112 so long as the claim, when read as a whole, is internally consistent and supported by the specification.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds that a Narrowing Claim Limitation that Expressly Requires Optional Elements of a Markush Group from the Same Claim is Neither Contradictory Nor Indefinite
In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed matter doctrine during inter partes review, the treatment of newly introduced claim constructions on appeal, and the PTAB’s anticipation and obviousness determinations.Continue Reading Interpreting the Printed Matter Doctrine in Inter Partes Review