Kevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Kevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION"

Transcription

1 Structure or Function? AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. and the Federal Circuit s Structure- Function Analysis of Functionally Defined Genus Claims Under Section 112 s Written Description Requirement Kevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION On July 1, 2014, in AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 1 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court s decision invalidating the claims of two antibody patents for failing to meet Section 112 s written description requirement. 2 Specifically, the court took issue with the patents functionally defined antibody-genus claims, concluding that the patentee failed to disclose a representative species of antibodies diverse enough to support the patents broad genus claims. Also of note was the court s consideration of the preclusive effect of decisions by the Patent and Trademark Office s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board). Moving forward, the AbbVie decision casts doubt on the validity of functionally defined genus claims, particularly in highly technical fields such as biological sciences, and it closes the door on parties attempting to make collateralestoppel arguments based on interference decisions that are in the process of being challenged under 35 U.S.C II. TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE The patents at issue in AbbVie, U.S. Patent Numbers 6,914,128 ( 128 patent) and 7,504,485 ( 485 patent), were directed to a class of fully humanized antibodies designed to bind to and neutralize Interlukin-12 (IL-12), a signaling protein secreted by the human body that, if overproduced, can lead to psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. The structure of the claimed antibody genus played a major role in the court s written description analysis. Generally speaking, an antibody consists * Kevin Adam is a litigation associate in the New York office of White & Case LLP and a member of the firm's Competition and Intellectual Property Practice Groups. Mr. Adam's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in the areas of antitrust and intellectual property. He regularly represents clients in the pharmaceutical and technology industries. This commentary contains the views and opinions of Mr. Adam only and does not reflect the views of White & Case LLP or those of its clients F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 2. See id. at 1290.

2 2 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. III:1 of four chains of amino acids, two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains, folded into a three-dimensional structure that binds to an antigen and facilitates the removal of the antigen from the body. The heavy and light chains have both a constant and variable region. Among human antibodies, the variable region of the heavy chain is divided into seven families, ranging from V H 1 to V H 7. Similarly, the variable region of the light chain is divided into two classes, either Kappa or Lambda. The variable regions of the heavy and light chains each have three complimentary determining regions (CDRs). The binding affinity of an antibody that is, its ability to bind to and later disassociate from the antigen is measured by what is referred to as the antibody s k off rate. The lower the k off rate, the tighter the antibody binds with the targeted antigen. AbbVie s 128 and 485 patents claimed the entire genus of fully humanized antibodies that bind IL-12, but it did so only by the antibodies functional characteristics. Said differently, AbbVie claimed the binding and neutralizing characteristics of the antibody, not the structural composition of the antibody itself. Claim 29 of the 128 patent, which was treated as representative, claimed the following: A neutralizing isolated human antibody, or antigenbinding portion thereof that binds to human IL-12 and disassociates from human IL-12 with a k off rate constant of 1x10-2 s -1 or less, as determined by surface plasmon resonance. 3 In its disclosure, AbbVie listed more than 300 different variations of antibodies that achieved the desired k off rate. That said, all 300 of the disclosed antibodies variations were derived from the antibody Joe-9 and thus all shared the same structural makeup: V H 3 heavy chains and Lambda Light chains. The differences between each of the 300 disclosed antibodies were only minor changes to the CDR sequences of the Joe-9-based antibodies. 4 Notably, although AbbVie disclosed these 300 variations, AbbVie chose not to disclose any structural features or characteristics that were common to the members of the claimed antibody genus. The Defendant-Appellee, Centocor, markets its own antibody that neutralizes human IL-12 under the brand name Stelara. Although the Stelara product is comprised of V H 5 heavy chains and Kappa light chains an entirely different structure than the Joe-9-based antibodies disclosed in the 128 and 485 patents AbbVie nonetheless alleged that Stelara fell within the scope of the genus claims because it was a fully humanized antibody that bound to and disassociated from IL-12 at the claimed k off rate Id. at See at AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., 759 F.3d at 1292 (outlining structural characteristics of Stelara ).

3 2015] STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION? 3 III. BACKGROUND After filing its patent application for Stelara, Centocor provoked an interference with AbbVie s 128 patent to contest both priority and validity of the 128 patent on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the 128 patent was not invalid for obviousness and awarded priority to AbbVie. Shortly thereafter, AbbVie and Centocor each filed actions AbbVie an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and Centocor a declaratory-judgment action for noninfringement and invalidity in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Separately, Centocor challenged the Board s earlier invalidity and priority decisions under 35 U.S.C. 146, which allows a party to contest a Board ruling by filing a civil action in federal court. Centocor s actions were transferred to the District of Massachusetts and consolidated with AbbVie s infringement action. 6 At trial, AbbVie moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Centocor should be collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of the 128 patent because Centocor had failed to invalidate the patent in the parties earlier interference proceeding. The trial court denied AbbVie s summary-judgment motion but, after construing the claims, found that Centocor nevertheless infringed the asserted claims of the 128 and 485 patents. With infringement decided, the issue of validity was tried before a jury. Upon conclusion of the trial on validity, the jury determined that each of the asserted claims were invalid for lack of adequate written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness. AbbVie moved for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on each of the invalidity grounds, but the motion was denied. 7 On appeal, AbbVie challenged the district court s denial of summary judgment and JMOL. 8 IV. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The collateral-estoppel argument AbbVie presented to the Federal Circuit focused on the parties earlier interference proceeding. AbbVie contended that the Board s interference decision was final and thus Centocor should have been foreclosed from relitigating the issue of patent validity at trial. AbbVie believed that the Board s validity ruling in the interference action was binding and Centocor s Section 146 proceeding was akin to an appeal of an otherwisefinal judgment. In response, Centocor argued that, unlike other types of appeals, Section 146 allows the party challenging a Board decision to put forth 6. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, (Fed. Cir. 2014) (providing procedural history). 7. Id. at 1290 (outlining issues at the trial court). 8. Id. AbbVie also challenged the district court s denial of its motion for a new trial on the basis of evidentiary and jury-instruction errors. AbbVie did not appeal the obviousness determination outright but instead alleged that the jury-instruction error warranted a new trial. Id.

4 4 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. III:1 new evidence and have the entire record reviewed de novo by the district court. And thus, as long as the Section 146 proceeding was pending, Centocor contended, the Board s decision was not yet a binding final judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel. The Federal Circuit agreed with Centocor, holding that because the district court can conduct a de novo review of all of the evidence in a Section 146 proceeding, including new evidence that was inadmissible at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), a Board decision cannot be considered a final judgment that would preclude a party from relitigating the same or similar issues in a parallel action. 9 Although the Federal Circuit made clear that a Board s decision is not final when challenged under Section 146 for purposes of collateral estoppel, the court expressly stopped short of applying that same rationale to Board decisions challenged under 35 U.S.C That section allows a party to appeal a Board s ruling directly to the Federal Circuit. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if the Federal Circuit treats Section 141 challenges to interference proceedings like typical appeals, allowing parties to argue that underlying Board decisions have collateral-estoppel effect in subsequent or parallel litigations. V. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION The primary focus of the Federal Circuit s decision in AbbVie was its application of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112 to AbbVie s expansive antibody-genus claims. AbbVie contended that the district court should have granted its JMOL motion on the issue of written description. Specifically, AbbVie believed there was adequate support for its broad genus claim because AbbVie had disclosed more than 300 antibodies covering the full range of the claimed k off rates in the patents specifications. And Centocor s attempts to distinguish Stelara on the basis of structure, AbbVie contended, were legally irrelevant because AbbVie s claims were defined by k off rate, not structural characteristics. In response, Centocor pointed out that, although AbbVie disclosed over 300 variations of antibodies, all of those variations were Joe-9-based; therefore, all of the disclosed antibodies had V H 3 heavy chains and Lambda light chains. Only small adjustments to the CDR sequence differentiated each disclosed antibody from the next. In sum, the thrust of Centocor s argument was that AbbVie did not disclose, and thus could not prove it possessed the idea of, a sufficiently representative number of 9. Id. at (noting Board decision is not a binding final judgment because the factual record remains open with respect to the issues contested at the PTO.... [And] [b]ecause a district court can make a de novo determination of facts upon the submission of new evidence. ) 10. Id.at 1297 ( Whether a Board s interference decision that is on appeal under 141 can have collateral estoppel effect on issues raised in a co-pending litigation is another question, one we need not address here.

5 2015] STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION? 5 antibody species required to support such a broad genus of antibodies. The Federal Circuit has held that when a patent claims a functionally defined genus, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionallydefined genus. 11 More specifically, to satisfy Section 112 s written description requirement, a party claiming an entire genus must disclose either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features so common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the members of that genus. 12 On appeal, AbbVie conceded that it did not disclose structural features common to the members of the genus, arguing instead that its roughly 300 disclosed antibodies constituted a representative number of species to support its genus claims. Despite AbbVie s contentions that the disclosed antibodies were sufficiently representative, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court s denial of AbbVie s motion for JMOL, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury s verdict of invalidity for lack of adequate written description. The court explained that the jury heard ample evidence that AbbVie s patents only describe one type of structurally similar anti-bodies and that those antibodies are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus. 13 To illustrate its species-genus rationale, the court analogized a claimed genus with a plot of land, maintaining that if the disclosed species only abide in a corner of the genus, one has not described the genus sufficiently to show that the inventor invented, or had possession of, the genus. He only described a portion of it. That is the case here. 14 Further, the court used this same analogy to address AbbVie s argument that the company did not need to disclose structural characteristics of the species because its claim was functionally based. One describes a plot of land by its furthest coordinates, in effect drawing a perimeter fence around it. That may be akin to the function of patent claims to particularly point out and distinctly circumscribe the outer boundaries of a claimed invention. With the written description of a genus, however, merely drawing a fence around a perceived genus is not a description of the genus. 15 In sum, the court held that although AbbVie did not have to disclose every possible species, or even the allegedly infringing compound itself, in exact terms to comply with Section 112 s written description requirement, the 11. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 12. Id. at 1350 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, (Fed. Cir. 1997)) F.3d at Id. 15. Id.

6 6 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. III:1 patents [have to] at least describe some species representative of antibodies that are structurally similar to the allegedly infringing compound. 16 VI. IMPLICATIONS OF ABBVIE Moving forward, the AbbVie decision provides clarity in two areas of the patent law. First, the decision makes clear that Board decisions that are in the process of being challenged under Section 146 will not be considered final binding judgments for collateral-estoppel purposes. That said, the court expressly side-stepped the issue of whether Board decisions that are challenged by means of Section 141 a direct appeal of the decision to the Federal Circuit could have preclusive effect. Based on the court s emphasis on the ongoing, open nature of Section 146 proceedings in reaching its conclusion, however, my expectation is that the Federal Circuit, when presented with the opportunity, will hold that Board decisions challenged under Section 141 do in fact constitute final binding judgments. And, indeed, such decisions could serve to preclude a party from later challenging those same issues in a subsequent or parallel proceeding. Second, the decision raises the bar on patentees seeking to claim functionally. In the wake of AbbVie, patentees with functional claims will now need to go out of their way to establish a reasonable structure-function correlation in their specification or by reference to the knowledge of one skilled in the relevant art. And perhaps more notably, for existing patents, the decision unambiguously calls into question the validity of functionally defined genus claims. Indeed, the court went so far to say that functional claims are inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge[s] for lack of written description support, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, such as biological sciences. 17 In light of the court s express skepticism regarding functionally defined genus claims, my expectation is that challenges to the validity of these types of patents on written description grounds will continue to grow. And, generally speaking, I think that is a good thing. Allowing patentees to claim a broad genus without appropriately disclosing species sufficient to support those claims almost certainly gives rise to undeserved patent protection on inventions that simply were never invented. Indeed, such a grant is at odds with the very 16. Id. at AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., 759 F.3d at The court noted functional genus claims in technology fields will be particularly susceptible to validity challenges under Section 112 s written description requirement because it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Id. (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Ariad Pharmaceuticals, the Federal Circuit wrote, [T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. 598 F.3d at 1351.

7 2015] STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION? 7 purpose of the patent laws a patentee should not be granted a monopoly on an invention he or she has yet to invent or fails to appropriately disclose to the public. I also believe there is a chance that the decision could be a boon for pharmaceutical innovation. As more of these broad patents are found to be invalid, I expect that pharmaceutical manufacturers will have a greater incentive to innovate in areas of biological science that until now fell within the scope of broad, functionally defined genus claims of various biological-science patents.

Written Description. John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

Written Description. John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Written Description John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY October, 2013 1 The Principal Issues The International Problem Similar statutory description requirements

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ABBOTT GMBH, Defendant-Appellee 2015-1662 Appeal from the United States District Court

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system

More information

Paper 14 Tel: Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 14 Tel: Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioner v. ALETHIA

More information

Recent Decisions Affecting Patent Law

Recent Decisions Affecting Patent Law Recent Decisions Affecting Patent Law IPO Annual Meeting 2010 By: Meg Boulware Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology

More information

In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut

In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut I. INTRODUCTION In Metoprolol Succinate the Court of Appeals for

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.

More information

Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle. Donald S. Chisum*

Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle. Donald S. Chisum* Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle Donald S. Chisum* In Ariad Pharmacueticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (No. 2008-1248, En banc, March 22,

More information

2010 PATENTLY O PATENT LAW JOURNAL

2010 PATENTLY O PATENT LAW JOURNAL 2010 PATENTLY O PATENT LAW JOURNAL Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle 1 By Donald S. Chisum 2 March 2010 In Ariad Pharmacueticals, Inc. v.

More information

The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case

The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case By: Michael A. Leonard II Overview There is significant disagreement among judges of the Court of Appeals

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1461, -1480 MEDICHEM, S.A., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, ROLABO, S.L, Defendant-Cross Appellant. Barry S. White, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, of New

More information

Requirement: Lessons Learned Since Ariad v. Lilly Navigating Section 112 Disclosure Obligations and Withstanding Invalidity Challenges

Requirement: Lessons Learned Since Ariad v. Lilly Navigating Section 112 Disclosure Obligations and Withstanding Invalidity Challenges Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patents and the Written Description Requirement: Lessons Learned Since Ariad v. Lilly Navigating Section 112 Disclosure Obligations and Withstanding

More information

(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E.

(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. Case: 12-1261 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2012 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY,

More information

Legal Constraints On Corporate Participation In Standards Setting Do s and Don ts By Eric D. Kirsch 1

Legal Constraints On Corporate Participation In Standards Setting Do s and Don ts By Eric D. Kirsch 1 Legal Constraints On Corporate Participation In Standards Setting Do s and Don ts By Eric D. Kirsch 1 Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed.Cir. 2003), is the latest development

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals Docket No. 2008-1248 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, THE WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, AND

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1507 (Serial No. 08/405,454) IN RE JOHN B. SULLIVAN and FINDLAY E. RUSSELL Lawrence M. Green, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts,

More information

Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016

Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger

More information

For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious, and adequately

For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious, and adequately Limin Zheng Box 650 limin@boalthall.berkeley.edu CASE REPORT: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (2000) I. INTRODUCTION For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCRIPTPRO, LLC AND SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1561 Appeal from the United

More information

35 U.S.C. 135 Gateway to Priority and Derivation Determinations by the BPAI

35 U.S.C. 135 Gateway to Priority and Derivation Determinations by the BPAI 35 U.S.C. 135 Gateway to Priority and Derivation Determinations by the BPAI By Todd Baker TODD BAKER is a partner in Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt s Interference and Electrical/Mechanical Departments.

More information

CAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK

CAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK CAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION It has long been considered black letter law that

More information

CHAPTER V PATENT SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS

CHAPTER V PATENT SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS CHAPTER V PATENT SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS This chapter deals with the specification and claiming requirements of patent applications. Patents are granted with a significant involvement of the patent office.

More information

Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018

Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018 Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018 Elizabeth A Doherty, PhD 925.231.1991 elizabeth.doherty@mcneillbaur.com Amelia Feulner

More information

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

When is a ruling truly final?

When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could

More information

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING

More information

Case 1:03-cv RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3816 (RJS) ORDER. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3817 (RJS) ORDER

Case 1:03-cv RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3816 (RJS) ORDER. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3817 (RJS) ORDER Case 1:03-cv-03816-RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., et al., r-- IUSDS SDNY, DOCUt.1ENT 11 i 1 ELECTRONICALLY HLED!

More information

Petitioners, v. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO., Respondent. REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS

Petitioners, v. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO., Respondent. REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS No. 11-1154 IN THE RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THOMAS J. SHAW, Petitioners, v. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file

More information

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act

More information

United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Plaintiffs Amax, Inc. ( Amax ) and Worktools, Inc.

United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Plaintiffs Amax, Inc. ( Amax ) and Worktools, Inc. United States District Court District of Massachusetts AMAX, INC. AND WORKTOOLS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ACCO BRANDS CORP., Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-10695-NMG Gorton, J. MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiffs

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit AMGEN INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING LIMITED, AMGEN USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC, REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit METTLER-TOLEDO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B-TEK SCALES, LLC, Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2011-1173, -1200 Appeals from the United States District

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit THOMSON S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, QUIXOTE CORPORATION and DISC MANUFACTURING, INC.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit THOMSON S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, QUIXOTE CORPORATION and DISC MANUFACTURING, INC. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 97-1485 THOMSON S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUIXOTE CORPORATION and DISC MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendants-Appellees. George E. Badenoch, Kenyon &

More information

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011 The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents

More information

Chapter 2300 Interference Proceedings

Chapter 2300 Interference Proceedings Chapter 2300 Interference Proceedings 2301 Introduction 2301.01 Statutory Basis 2301.02 Definitions 2301.03 Interfering Subject Matter 2302 Consult an Interference Practice Specialist 2303 Completion of

More information

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1062 LIZARDTECH, INC., and Plaintiff-Appellant, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiffs EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING, INC., and EARTH

More information

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L

More information

Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection

Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by

More information

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Intellectual Ventures I, LLC; Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-10860-PBS Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States

More information

112 Requirements. January Disclosing A Genus Of Compounds. g Supporting A Negative Limitation By Disclosing A Reason To Exclude

112 Requirements. January Disclosing A Genus Of Compounds. g Supporting A Negative Limitation By Disclosing A Reason To Exclude Federal Circuit Review 112 Requirements Volume Four January 2013 In This Issue: g Disclosing A Genus Of Compounds g Supporting A Negative Limitation By Disclosing A Reason To Exclude g Disclosing Two Concurrent

More information

Case 1:13-cv LPS Document 405 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:13-cv LPS Document 405 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:13-cv-01987-LPS Document 405 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 25844 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP 2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI 2012-1086 (Serial No. 10/045,902) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

More information

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A123 SYSTEMS, INC., * * Plaintiff, * v. * * Civil Action No. 06-10612-JLT HYDRO-QUÉBEC, * * Defendant. * * MEMORANDUM TAURO, J. September 28, 2009

More information

Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations

Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations Page 1 Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations, is an assistant professor at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement

More information

The Patent Examination Manual. Section 10: Meaning of useful. Meaning of useful. No clear statement of utility. Specific utility

The Patent Examination Manual. Section 10: Meaning of useful. Meaning of useful. No clear statement of utility. Specific utility The Patent Examination Manual Section 10: Meaning of useful An invention, so far as claimed in a claim, is useful if the invention has a specific, credible, and substantial utility. Meaning of useful 1.

More information

The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees

The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court

More information

Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting. James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC

Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting. James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC 1600 James.Wilson@uspto.gov 571-272-0661 What is Double Patenting (DP)? Statutory DP Based on 35 USC 101 An applicant (or assignee)

More information

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN June 20, 2002 On May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its longawaited decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 1 vacating the landmark

More information

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly. BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

USPTO Training Memo Lacks Sound Basis In The Law

USPTO Training Memo Lacks Sound Basis In The Law Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com USPTO Training Memo Lacks Sound Basis In The Law Law360,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CLEARVALUE, INC. AND RICHARD ALAN HAASE, Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE, INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC.,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1074 SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC. and SCHWARZ PHARMA AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 11-596 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. AND NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, v. Petitioners, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT BIORESEARCH CENTER, AND ABBOTT BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., Respondents.

More information

United States District Court District of Massachusetts

United States District Court District of Massachusetts United States District Court District of Massachusetts MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC., Plaintiffs, v. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD., Defendants.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1483 INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTV STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, and USX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan S. Quinn, Sachnoff

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, AND PHILIP E. HAGUE. 2012-1261 Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D. Dennies Varughese, Pharm. D. Trey Powers, Ph.D. I. Introduction Among the myriad changes precipitated

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * ALYSSA DANIELSON-HOLLAND; JAY HOLLAND, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 12, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND NOTICE REGARDING PREPARATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS. Docket No. PTO P

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND NOTICE REGARDING PREPARATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS. Docket No. PTO P IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND NOTICE REGARDING PREPARATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS Docket No. PTO P 2011 0046 COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation

More information

U.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *

U.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * Since the June grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, 1 the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might find inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial

More information

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor State of the Patent System Dennis Crouch Professor University of Missouri History O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) The Telegraph Patent Case waves roll over time courts crash volcanos erupt next

More information

112 Requirements. February Winning a Broad Claim Construction Leaves Claims Vulnerable

112 Requirements. February Winning a Broad Claim Construction Leaves Claims Vulnerable Federal Circuit Review 112 Requirements Volume Three Issue Three February 2011 In This Issue: g Winning a Broad Claim Construction Leaves Claims Vulnerable to 112 Challenges g Distinguishing Commercial

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1458 HALLCO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., and OLOF A. HALLSTROM, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, Counterclaim Defendant- Appellee, v. RAYMOND

More information

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? Charles L. Gholz 1, 2

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? Charles L. Gholz 1, 2 I. Introduction WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? By Charles L. Gholz 1, 2 What should you do if you suspect that your client may be held to infringe both of two interfering

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1583 (Serial No. 09/699,950) IN RE CARL F. KLOPFENSTEIN and JOHN L. BRENT, JR. John M. Collins, Hovey Williams LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued

More information

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the

More information

Case 1:14-cv LPS Document 583 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:14-cv LPS Document 583 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:14-cv-00846-LPS Document 583 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 37578 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC and UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI

More information

Paper No Entered: July 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: July 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571-272-7822 Entered: July 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioner,

More information

Claims and Determining Scope of Protection

Claims and Determining Scope of Protection Introduction 2014 APAA Patents Committee Questionnaire Claims and Determining Scope of Protection for Taiwan Group Many practitioners and users of the patent system believe that it is a fairly universal

More information

PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS

PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS Patentable Subject Matter, Prior Art, and Post Grant Review Christine Ethridge Copyright 2014 by K&L Gates LLP. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER The statements and views expressed

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 2012-1420 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

More information

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative 2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,

More information

Patent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents

Patent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents Patent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents Eric K. Steffe and Grant E. Reed* * 2000 Eric K. Steffe and Grant E. Reed. Mr. Steffe is a director and Mr. Reed is an associate with Sterne,

More information

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM

More information

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry

More information

- F.3d, 2009 WL , C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO )

- F.3d, 2009 WL , C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO ) CITE AS: 1 HASTINGS. SCI. AND TECH. L.J. 269 ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - F.3d, 2009 WL 877642, C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO. 2008-1248) I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Defendant-Appellant

More information

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions TOPIC Innovation Act H.R. 9 PATENT Act S. 1137 Post Grant Review ( PGR ) Proceedings Claim Construction: Each patent claim

More information

Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block?

Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? ACCA, San Diego Chapter General Counsel Roundtable and All Day MCLE Eric Acker and Greg Reilly Morrison & Foerster LLP San Diego, CA 2007 Morrison & Foerster

More information

2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW

2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW 2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, 1993 Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW Andrew J. Dillon a1 Duke W. Yee aa1 Copyright (c) 1993 by the State

More information

We Innovate Healthcare 1

We Innovate Healthcare 1 Kimberly J. Prior Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. December 5, 2012 We Innovate Healthcare 1 The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is intended to prevent the extension of the term of a patent by prohibiting

More information

Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective

Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1

More information

November Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations. g Motivation To Combine. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

November Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations. g Motivation To Combine. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Federal Circuit Review Obviousness Volume Two Issue Two November 2009 In This Issue: g Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations g Motivation To Combine g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting = Product-Process

More information

DERIVATION LAW AND DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS. Charles L. Gholz Attorney at Law

DERIVATION LAW AND DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS. Charles L. Gholz Attorney at Law Washington State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section December 9, 2011 DERIVATION LAW AND DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS Charles L. Gholz Attorney at Law cgholz@oblon.com 703-412 412-6485 Copyright 2011

More information

Considerations for the United States

Considerations for the United States Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user

More information

Intellectual Property Primer. Tom Utley, PhD, CLP Licensing Officer Patent Agent

Intellectual Property Primer. Tom Utley, PhD, CLP Licensing Officer Patent Agent Intellectual Property Primer Tom Utley, PhD, CLP Licensing Officer Patent Agent Outline IP overview and Statutes What is patentable Inventorship and patent process US821,393 Flying Machine O. & W. Wright

More information

INTERFERENCE ESTOPPEL IS WORSE THAN ISSUE PRECLUSION 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Kenneth D. Wilcox 3

INTERFERENCE ESTOPPEL IS WORSE THAN ISSUE PRECLUSION 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Kenneth D. Wilcox 3 INTERFERENCE ESTOPPEL IS WORSE THAN ISSUE PRECLUSION 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Kenneth D. Wilcox 3 Introduction Many readers may assume that interference estoppel is just a synonym for issue preclusion,

More information

Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:11-cv-02541-PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ABBVIE INC. AND ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE MATHILDA AND TERENCE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY TRUST, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 17-1480 Document: 163 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2017 No. 17-1480 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AMGEN INC.; AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED; AND AMGEN USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees

More information

Case 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071

Case 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 Case 2:12-cv-00147-WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff,

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination

More information