In one of the more fascinating legal analyses presented in recent memory, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Univ. of Florida Res. Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co.,[1] on February 26, 2019. The issues presented were state assertion of sovereign immunity in federal court, and method and system of treatment claims …
Category: fed circuit watch
opinions by ct appeals for federal circuit (patent, trademark, some copyright)
Fed Circuit Watch: District Courts Still Have Problems with Cray Rule
On February 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus, with a combined petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, in In re Google LLC, the writ of mandate review stems from a patent infringement suit filed by SEVEN Networks, LLC, a mobile data analytics company, …
Fed Circuit Watch: Pre-Critical Date Surgeries Not Invalidating Public Uses
In the first split precedential decision of 2019 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Fed Circuit assessed the issues of invalidating public disclosure versus an inventor’s exception to experimentally perfect an invention for its intended purpose. That case, Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.,[1] decided on January 24, 2019, split heavily because of …
Fed Circuit Watch: USPTO Botched Patent Term Adjustment Calculation
On January 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu,[1] in which the Fed Circuit found defective the USPTO’s calculation of patent term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. §154(b), a rather unexciting and mostly mechanical aspect of patent prosecution. Supernus Pharmaceuticals owns U.S. Patent No. 8,747,897 (‘897) …
Fed Circuit Watch: Another Mayo, Another §101 Kill
Medical diagnostics patents involving a certain lab testing company named Mayo took a hit when those patents were deemed invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. No, it’s not that Mayo case,[1] but the one in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided on February 6, 2019, Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative …
Fed Circuit Watch: Single Reference Obviousness Finding Does Not Require Motivation to Combine
Two cases decided recently by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit discuss the oft-problematic area of 35 U.S.C. §103, or the nonobviousness requirement. This is the second case, Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu,[1] decided January 10, 2019. Realtime Data, LLC, owns U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812 (‘812), directed to system and method of providing …
Fed Circuit Watch: No Error in Reconsideration of Non-Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
Two cases decided recently by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit discuss the oft-problematic area of 35 U.S.C. §103, or the nonobviousness requirement. AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[1] decided on January 9, 2019, is the first case. AC Technologies S.A. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680 (‘680), directed to data access management, in …
Fed Circuit Watch: Method of Wagering a Dice Game Bites Alice Dust
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on the last day of the court’s calendar year, December 28, 2018, ruled on In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,[1] in what is the last 2018 case discussing patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. The ruling is not very groundbreaking, although it does emphasize that gaming methods are …
Fed Circuit Watch: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Does Not Preclude §156 Patent Term Extension
This is the second case dealing with Novartis in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has handed down a decision related to patent term. While the facts of this case, Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC,[1] are very similar to the companion case decided on the same day, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. …
Fed Circuit Watch: Later-Filed, Earlier-Expiring Patent Not Appropriate as Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Reference
An interesting case which revolved around the interplay between differing patent terms, patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. §156, and obviousness-type double patenting was decided on December 7, 2018, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals Inc.,[1] by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Patent term has changed based on acts of Congress. …