This case is an appellate review of the district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date.
Continue Reading Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2022-1147 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)

This case addresses the proper standard for an appeal of a discretionary decision by a successor judge as well as requests for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and certain circumstances that do not make a case exceptional.
Continue Reading OneSubsea IP UK Ltd. v. FMC Tech., Inc., No. 22-1099 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2023)

This case addresses patent eligibility under Alice and whether the district court should have afforded the patent owner leave to amend its complaint.
Continue Reading Sanderling Management v. Snap Inc. No. 21-2173 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) Alice – 35 U.S.C. § 101

The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious.
Continue Reading Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This case addresses the validity of patents asserted against a high-density fiber optic equipment importer in violation of § 337. In particular, this case discusses enablement and claim construction as it relates to interpretation of open ended ranges and plural claim language.
Continue Reading FS.COM INC. v. International Trade Commission Corning Optical Communications LLC – Intervenor No. 22-1228 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2023)

This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) was correct in declining to consider the patent owner’s certain evidence not submitted in compliance with the Board’s rules and in making a determination regarding written description requirements.
Continue Reading Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1269, 2022-1270 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2023)

This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to combine, unexpected results, and objective indicia of nonobviousness.
Continue Reading In re Couvaras, No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023)

This case addresses the legal standard for inherent anticipation.

Background

The ’127 patent is directed to an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (“SNALP”) that have non-lamellar structure and “comprise a nucleic acid … methods of making SNALP, and methods of delivering and/or administering the SNALP.” ’127 patent, Abstract. The ’127 patent states that its purpose is to allow for more efficient methods and compositions for introducing nucleic acids into cells and methods of downregulating gene expression. ’127 patent, col. 2 ll. 54-61. The ’127 patent identifies five formulations of various compositions that can be prepared by either Stepwise…
Continue Reading Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, FKA Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., v. Modernatx, Inc., FKA Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. No. 2020-1183 (Fed. Cir. April 11, 2023)

This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range vs. a range overlapping the claimed range.
Continue Reading UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. No. 2021-1924, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)

This case addresses the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie case to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.
Continue Reading HIP Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. No. 2022-1696, _ F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023)

This case addresses requirements to correct inventorship of a patent.
Continue Reading Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prods., Inc. No. 2021-2316, 2021-2317, pending cite (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023)

After considering comments from various stakeholders for nearly a year, on July 24, 2023, the USPTO issued the revised interim Director Review Process. Among other changes, the revised process now permits parties to request the Director Review on institution decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. This is a significant expansion of the scope of director review, which allows petitioners who had no appeal options to an IPR denial to now have at least one avenue of review of an institution denial.
Continue Reading PTAB Makes Significant Changes to Director Review Process

This case addresses the construction of the articles “a” and “said” in relation to subsequently recited functions and whether “a” can be restricted to be singular in its meaning.
Continue Reading Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC No. 21-2320 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023)