Federal Circuit panel splits on inherency case In a second appeal involving patents relating to the original "Purple Pill®," a panel of the Federal Circuit split on whether an earlier patent application by a Korean company inherently anticipated one of AstraZeneca's patents covering the popular heartburn medication Prilosec® (omeprazole). The panel majority held that a process disclosed in a Korean patent application […] Continue Reading →
Be careful what you wish for: broad claims found invalid In another case making a return trip to the Federal Circuit, the court held that under its broad claim construction decided in the first appeal, the asserted claims were invalid in two patents as not enabled and in two more as anticipated. In order to secure a finding of infringement, the patentee, Liebel-Flarsheim, argued for […] Continue Reading →
No Crying Over Spilled Milk – Held to Claim Construction During Prosecution Nouri Hakim appealed the decisions of the District Court of Western Louisiana granting Cannon Avent Group’s motion for summary judgment that Avent did not infringe one of Hakim’s patents (“the ‘931 patent“) and finding another of Hakim’s patents invalid (“the ‘620 patent“). The patents-in-suit involved the art of non-spill drinking cups and the apparatus in […] Continue Reading →
Working until the end of the year, Federal Circuit addresses a Law School Exam Type Case The Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of Indiana decision that generic drug makers IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Dr. Reddy’s Labratories, Ltd. (DRL) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. infringed Eli Lilly and Company’s (Lilly) U.S. Patent no. 5,229,382. The ‘382 Patent claims chemical compound olanzapine and the use of the compound to treat schizophrenia. The infringers […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the issue of determining when an invention is on sale within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A claimed invention is considered to be on sale under ? 102(b) if the invention is sold or offered for sale more than one […] Continue Reading →
Enablement standard for prior art less stringent than enablement standard for patents The Federal Circuit, in Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., discussed the requirements for a prior art reference to be enabled, and thus anticipate a patent. Aventis is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814, covering the use of the compound riluzole to treat ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Impax wanted to […] Continue Reading →