Today’s opinions in KSR v. Teleflex and Microsoft v. AT&T

Click here for the opinion in KSR v. Teleflex. Click here for the opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T. More to come once we've had a chance to review the decisions.

Continue Reading →

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 →

Obviousness: A Primer by the Federal Circuit

In a case before the Federal Circuit, the district court's holding that a patent was valid and enforceable was rejected, not only because the Federal Circuit found the holding incorrect, but also because the holding reflected a serious misconception regarding the proper burden of proof each party bears in patent litigation. The Federal Circuit set […]

Continue Reading →

Dippin’ Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation

What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable […]

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 →

Roundup of media coverage of “KSR v. Teleflex”

After last week’s arguments before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, the media has begun to offer its perspective on the case. Below is a sampling of the media coverage, which generally appears to think that the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test will either be scrapped entirely, or at least allow other ways to prove an […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court questions Federal Circuit’s obviousness test: is it “gobbledygook”?

In oral argument before the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., several Justices appeared uncomfortable with the Federal Circuit's "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test for obviousness. Justice Scalia, in his typical direct style, characterized the TSM test at various times as "gobbledygook," "irrational," and "meaningless." Other Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court to hear key obviousness case today

This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., a potentially landmark case on the issue of obviousness in patent law. The case deals with adjustable automotive pedals in vehicles with electronic throttle controls. Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of patent no. 6,237,565. KSR asserted that the ‘565 […]

Continue Reading →

Two patents held obvious, “no question” that motivation to combine references existed

Optivus Technology sued Ion Beam Applications (IBA) for infringing its patents relating to the use of proton beams in cancer therapy, and specifically to proton beam therapy facilities with multiple treatment rooms using the same proton source. In addition to patent infringement, Optivus also claimed violations of California and Florida unfair competition laws and a […]

Continue Reading →