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 Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2023-1952 (Fed. Cir. April 11, 2024), this case involves appellate review of a district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and infringement in Hatch-Waxman litigation. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reviewed the lower court’s obviousness analysis for dosage regimen and polymorph patent claims, as well as its interpretation of ANDA approval resetting provisions.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Rifaximin Patent Rulings, Affirms ANDA Approval Restrictions

The Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to storing and providing medical images over the web as “virtual views” were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they involved nothing more than “converting data and using computers to collect, manipulate, and display the data,” and the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that creating “virtual views” on the fly involved unconventional technology or a concrete application that would transform the abstract idea to significantly more.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patents Manipulating Medical Imaging Data as Abstract

In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132; 7,676,411; and 7,813,996 — were related and directed to graphical user interfaces used by commodity traders. TT alleged that IBG’s software, TWS BookTrader, which is used by traders to buy and sell on exchanges, infringed its patents.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Applies WesternGeco Framework to Expert’s Effort to Seek Royalties Flowing from Customers Overseas

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the United States Copyright Office (“USCO”) delivered a report to Congress entitled Non-Fungible Tokens and Intellectual Property on March 12, 2024 (“Report”). While the Report is comprehensive, it does not recommend any new action to address IP issues with NFTs.Continue Reading The USPTO and USCO Delivered a Report to Congress on IP Issues with NFTs – Maintains Existing IP Regime

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may change how we invent: many envision a collaborative approach between human inventors and AI systems that develop novel solutions to problems together. Such AI-assisted inventions present a new set of legal issues under patent law.Continue Reading AI-Assisted Inventions: Are They Patentable? Who is the Inventor?

The Biden administration recently determined that it has the right to seize patents covering certain high-priced medicines, in an apparent effort to take a more aggressive approach to lowering drug prices. See Targeting costly meds, Biden admin asserts authority to seize certain drug patents – POLITICO. Pursuant to this plan, the Commerce Department announced it plans to issue a framework that lists the factors the government should consider in determining whether to seize drug patents. Id. The department will seek public feedback and comment on the framework. Id.Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Companies Have Rights if the Federal Government Seized their Patents

In Baxalta Incorporated v. Genentech, Inc. 2022-1461 (Fed. Cir. September 20, 2023), this case addresses the enablement requirement in view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023).Continue Reading Enabling the “Full Scope” of Claims in View of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Amgen