Integrating infringing component into larger product does not escape contributory infringement In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of obviousness, but vacated and remanded the summary judgment of no contributory or inducing infringement of two other patents in suit related to recordable optical disk drive technology. The court relied on copyright cases applying the concept of secondary liability […] Continue Reading →
Prior art disclosure of compound does not anticipate substantially separated enantiomer In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's determination, after a bench trial, that the asserted claim of a patent had not been proven anticipated or obvious. The district court held that while the prior art showed the chemical structure of the claimed compound, it did not describe the separation of the […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court of Canada tightens obviousness standard The Supreme Court of Canada recently made significant changes to its obviousness standard for patentability. The case addressed a dispute arising between the brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer, Sanofi, and the Canadian generic manufacturer, Apotex. The decision by the Supreme Court of Canada brings its obviousness standard closer to the standard recently set forth by the U.S. […] Continue Reading →
Failure to raise KSR post-trial but pre-judgment results in waiver In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury's verdict of infringement, no obviousness, and no inequitable conduct. On appeal, the defendant for the first time argued the jury's verdict should be reversed in light of KSR. The Federal Circuit held the argument had been waived. The jury reached its verdict on December 8, […] Continue Reading →
Scope of prior art teachings incorrect; summary judgment of obviousness reversed In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment of obviousness. The patent related to dessicant packages. The district court held a prior art reference taught all limitations of the claims with the exception of the type of absorbent material contained in the package, and that, under KSR, it would be […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit hears arguments in In re Kubin; what will be obvious in biotechnology? Thursday, the Federal Circuit held oral arguments in In re Kubin, a biotechnology case involving a patent over a gene sequence in humans, and specifically whether the claims were obvious. This was the first precedential decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on the issue of obviousness in this field after KSR, so […] Continue Reading →
Substantial question regarding validity insufficient to defeat likelihood of success? In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction concerning the manufacture of an extended release formulation of an antibiotic. In a lengthy opinion, the Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's obvious-to-try logic from KSR to pharmaceutical patents. Notably, the court used the unpredictability of the pharmaceutical arts […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit declines to consider constitutionality of BPAI judge appointments, affirms rejection In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit decided a case involving both obviousness and the Appointments Clause relating to allegedly unconstitutional appointment of members of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The court determined that appellants failed to timely raise the issue of the constitutionality of the Appointments Clause by not presenting it […] Continue Reading →
Jury’s pre-KSR nonobviousness verdict reversed post-KSR In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of a patent were obvious after a jury verdict of no obviousness. KSR was decided after the jury's verdict but before the district court ruled on the defendant's motion for judgment […] Continue Reading →
BPAI: 102(e) art can be effective prior art as of provisional priority date In a decision recently designated precedential, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences considered the question of whether a reference that is prior art under § 102(e) is prior art as of its provisional priority date or the actual filing date of the reference. In affirming the examiner, the Board determined the reference was prior […] Continue Reading →