In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Continue Reading The Intertwining Nature of Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

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 Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.Continue Reading “Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed

In Incept v. Palette Life Sciences 21-2063, 21-2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023), the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the claims in the challenged patents unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the asserted prior art.Continue Reading Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

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