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
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 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