Crowd Funding Boost? Crowd Funding Patent Invalidated by Kickstarter

07.01.15 Posted in District Court Opinions, News by

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

Apotex loses IPR on Prodrug Obviousness (Institution Denied)

06.29.15 Posted in PTAB by

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.

You think your competitor’s patent is junk? Don’t tell it to the judge

06.08.15 Posted in Supreme Court Opinions by

The Supreme Court holds that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense against a charge of patent infringement

Means-Plus-Function Software Claims Must Have an Underlying Algorithm

05.08.15 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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.

Apotex Bid to Steal Mylan Exclusivity on Benicar

04.23.15 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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.

ATELVIA® Patents Obvious at District Court

03.15.15 Posted in District Court Opinions by

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.

Entecavir Obvious?

03.06.15 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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 […]

Megestrol Nanoparticle Formulation Claims – Not Inherently Obvious (at least not yet)

12.19.14 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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.

Means-plus-function claims – indefinite because of insufficient structure in the specification

10.27.14 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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 […]

Abbvie v. Janssen: Another nail in the coffin of functional claiming

08.03.14 Posted in Federal Circuit Opinions by

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 […]

Stay In Touch!
Subscribe to our Newsletter!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.