In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. 2022-1482 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2023), the case addresses the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB’s”) authority to issue a Final Written Decision in a post grant review (“PGR”) after the prescribed statutory deadline.Continue Reading PTAB’s Authority to Issue a Final Written Decision After a Statutory Deadline

In this case, the Federal Circuit determined the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a nexus between objective evidence and non-obviousness; and to establish the objective indicia of copying.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Standards to Establish Nexus Between Objective Evidence and Non-Obviousness, and to Establish Copying in Medtronic et al. v. Teleflex Innovations

In Finjan LLC, FKA Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., No. 2022-1048 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgement of invalidity based on collateral estoppel, where the case that provided estoppel was subsequently vacated. The Federal Circuit also examined various arguments attempting to circumvent an agreed-upon claim construction as well as the district court’s application of that construction in finding non-infringement, and the propriety of excluding expert testimony that failed to analyze apportionment of sub-features of the accused products.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates Invalidity Judgement Based on Collateral Estoppel from a Case Subsequently Vacated and Rebukes Plaintiff’s About-Face on Its Stipulated Claim Construction

In Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., the case addresses whether the final written decisions in a consolidated inter partes appeal (“IPR”) correctly found that U.S. Patent 7,736,355 (“the ’355 patent”) does not qualify as prior art to related U.S. Patents 8,048,032, RE45,380, RE45,776, RE45,760, and RE47,379 (collectively, “the challenged patents”) under pre-AIA’s first-to-invent provisions.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Swearing Behind a Prior Art Reference

In Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc., v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., the case addresses the weight the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should give to the intended purpose of a primary reference when evaluating a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art’s (POSITA) motivation to combine that primary reference with secondary references.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Relevance of Primary Reference’s Intended Purpose to a POSITA’s Motivation to Combine

In Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed the proper construction of the claim term “pipette guiding mechanism.” Specifically, the Federal Circuit found the plain and ordinary meaning of “pipette guiding mechanism” sufficient and addressed how various claim construction doctrines affected its analysis, including the use of a non-related patent cited in an IDS as intrinsic evidence.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Claim Construction of the Term “Pipette Guiding Mechanism”

In United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Tech Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision on invalidity and infringement of two pharmaceutical patents and the impact of the Final Written Decision (FWD) in a parallel inter-partes review (IPR) upon the district court’s decision.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Evaluates Impact of the Final Written Decision (FWD) in a Parallel Inter-Partes Review (IPR) on District Court’s decision of Invalidity and Infringement