The Enablement Requirement Requires More Than Just “Two Research Assignments,” says SCOTUS

112 Enablement patent

On May 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,[1] which touches on a formal requirement for patentability, the enablement requirement.  In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that where a patent claims an entire genus, the specification must enable one skilled in the art to make …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Error to Not Consider Arguments in Reply Brief

103 BRI fed circuit watch IPR obviousness patent Phillips

On August 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,[1] in which the rules played an important role in decisions made in the case. The facts are as follows. Intellectual Ventures I owns U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (‘831), entitled “Optimizing packet size to eliminate …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Enabling Scope of Design Patent Claims Expands – Greatly

112 design Enablement fed circuit watch indefiniteness patent

In a potentially ground-breaking decision in design patent prosecution, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down In re Maatita,[1] on August 20, 2018. The facts are as follows.  Ron Maatita filed a design patent application with the USPTO, Serial No. 29/404,677, claiming an athletic shoe sole design. As with all design patent …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Plain Claim Language Not Narrowed Unless Patentee Explicitly Disclaims Scope

BRI fed circuit watch lexicography patent

An interesting study in organic chemistry appeared at the Federal Circuit.  On April 16, 2018, a Fed Circuit panel in Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharm. Ltd.,[1] held that plain claim language will be construed narrowly absent the patentee’s clear disclaimer limiting its scope. First a primer on stereochemistry, which is the study …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Unreasonably Broad PTAB Claim Construction Reversed

102 BRI fed circuit watch patent

On March 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected, in In re Power Integrations, Inc.,[1] a PTAB decision finding that claims were invalidated as anticipated as unreasonably overbroad.  The claim construction was subject in an ex parte reexamination of Power Integrations’ U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876 (‘876).  ‘876 is directed to “Frequency …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Written Description From Earlier-Filed PCT with Species Claim Sufficient Support for Later-Filed Genus Claim

102 112 fed circuit watch patent PCT pre-AIA priority Written Description

On March 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,[1] which deals with many areas in patents, including foreign applications, priority claims, 35 U.S.C. §103, 35 U.S.C. §112, and pre-AIA treatment for examination.  This case was heard before a panel composing of Judges Newman, …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Well-Prepared Lexicography Dooms Claim Term as Obvious

103 BRI fed circuit watch IPR lexicography patent

This, unfortunately, was a bad week for Steuben Foods, Inc., since this is the second case it lost at the Federal Circuit against the same adversary, Nestlé Foods.  This time, in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on March 13, 2018, ruled that Steuben Foods could …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Not Bound by Fed Circuit Precedent

102 112 collateral estoppel fed circuit watch patent Written Description

On March 1, 2018, in a fairly convoluted and highly fractured decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was not bound to collateral estoppel principles which form a long line of Fed Circuit case precedence.  That case is Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, …

Continue Reading