Filewrapper

When Life Hands you Lemons, Make CoQ10

In the Federal Circuit Decision of Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., the Court found three related Soft-Gel patents invalid for obviousness. The three patents describe a way to dissolve CoQ10 in monoterpenes for enhanced delivery to the body. The patents disclosed two suitable examples, limonene and carvone and derivatives thereof. However, prior […]

Continue Reading →

Netlist v. Diablo Continues

    On July 25, 2017, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion vacating the Board’s decisions and remanding for further proceedings because of erroneous construction of certain language. The Board had previously deemed claims 15-17, 22, 24, 26 and 31-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,881,150 and claims 1, 16, 17, 24 and 30-31 of U.S. […]

Continue Reading →

Inevitable Does Not Equal Obvious

Earlier this week, the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware clearly erred in its obviousness analysis in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc, reversing the lower court’s decision and entering judgment in favor of Millennium. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Millennium”) […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Obviousness Decision for the Board’s Failure to Adequately Articulate an Obviousness Rationale

In Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding of obviousness of two claims.  The appeal arose from an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,417 owned by Black & Decker directed to a string trimmer.  The PTAB […]

Continue Reading →

The Continuing Saga of the First IPR at the Federal Circuit

    The Federal Circuit has simultaneously issued an order and an opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, previously discussed on Filewrapper® as being the first appeal arising from an inter partes review (“IPR‚¬) . The order issued by the Federal Circuit is a denial of the Petition for En Banc Rehearing to consider […]

Continue Reading →

Legitimate Advocacy and Genuine Misrepresentation of Material Facts

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision inApotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., upholding a district court's finding that Apotex's U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 ("the '556 patent") is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Dr. Sherman, founder and chairman of Apotex, wrote the '556 patent application and is its sole inventor. The '556 is based on Canadian […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Holds Common Sense Cannot Establish Presence of an Element

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies presents an interesting development in the law of obviousness. In affirming a finding of non-obviousness by the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"), the Federal Circuit held that while common sense or basic knowledge may provide a reason to combine elements present […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – April 23, 2013

· InK-Tech Telecoms v. Time Warner Cable, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the standard for evaluating the adequacy of complaints alleging direct patent infringement remains Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Form 18"). K-Tech filed separate complaints against Direct TV and Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – April 10, 2013

· InIn re Hubbell the Federal Circuit confirmed the rejection of all of the pending claims in an application, filed with Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall as named inventors. The invention disclosed in the application was based on research performed while all of the named inventors were at California Institute of […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – April 5, 2013

· In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. the Federal Circuit clarified several points relating to claim construction, determinations of non-obviousness, and calculation of damages. The court confirmed that claiming a “circuit” in conjunction with a sufficiently definite structure for performing the identified function is adequate to bar means-plus-function claiming. The court also […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up