US Patent 7,885,887, claiming crowd funding, is invalid under §101. “The ‘887 Patent claims only the abstract and time-honored concept of patronage, and even the addition of an element of computer use is insufficient to render it valid under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Kickstarter’s motion for summary judgment is granted
Petitioner Apotex asserted that claims directed to fosaprepitant were obvious, but the PTAB finds that there was no valid lead compound, so the patent is not obvious.
The Supreme Court holds that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense against a charge of patent infringement
EON’s patent with means-plus-function claiming describing complex computer functionality is indefinite because there are no algorithms to provide structure to the claims. When a patentee invokes means-plus-function claiming to recite a software function, it accedes to the reciprocal obligation of disclosing a sufficient algorithm as the corresponding structure.
In this Hatch-Waxman action, Apotex is attempting to trigger a forfeiture event, that if successful, will cause Mylan to forfeit its 180-day exclusivity for a generic copy of Benicar®, olmesartan medoximil, that Mylan is otherwise eligible to receive.
The court therefore found clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention (in 2005) would have been motivated to use EDTA in the claimed amounts with a reasonable expectation of success.
In this Hatch-Waxman case, Bristol-Myers Squibb, owner of the drug entecavir (sold as Baraclude®, indicated for hepatitis B (HBV) infection), sued Teva Pharmaceuticals for patent infringement. Teva responded that the patent (the only patent at issue was US5206244, priority date 10/18/1990), which claims the chemical structure of entecavir, was obvious. The district court found in […]
in an obviousness analysis, an inherency argument has a heightened standard that must be the natural result flowing from the operation as disclosed in prior art references.
Contact the author: Andrew Berks Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 2014-1040 (Fed. Cir. 10/14/2014). The Federal Circuit panel, (Prost, Taranto, and Hughes) outlines a two-step framework for determining if a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly (formerly 112 ¶ 6). The panel concludes the challenged claim invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), i.e., the claim is […]
Contact the author: Andrew Berks AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 2013-1338 (Fed. Cir. 7/1/2014) This is a significant decision that extends the Federal Circuit’s holdings on written description from Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and has important lessons for patent applicants seeking to […]