Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Messed Up Obviousness Analysis (Again)

103 fed circuit watch IPR obviousness overlapping ranges patent POSITA PTAB

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seems to have bungled an obviousness analysis (again), and was dinged by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in E.I. DuPont de Nemours v. Synvina C.V.,[1] decided on September 17, 2018.  The case is a good primer on the law of obviousness related to overlapping ranges. …

Continue Reading

Glyphosate Plaintiff Accepts Reduced Punitive Damages Award

patent Tech Patents technology

On October 26, 2018, the dying plaintiff in the first-of-its-kind case involving Monsanto Co.’s glyphosate product, ROUNDUP®, has accepted a judge’s punitive damages award reduction prior to the court-imposed deadline of December 7, 2018.  The amount of $78 million represents the $39 million for compensatory damages, and the equivalent $39 million for punitives, which the …

Continue Reading

CannabIP: DEA Schedules CBD – but with Big Caveat

Cannabis IP patent technology

On September 27, 2018, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) scheduled EPIDIOLEX® as a Schedule V regulated drug under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA).  In doing so, the DEA has expressly scheduled a drug wholly-containing cannabis compounds as an active ingredient.  Epidiolex was recently approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for market as a …

Continue Reading

Monsanto Motion for New Trial Conditionally Denied and JNOV Denied

Tech Patents technology

As a follow-up to our previous posting on the blockbuster glyphosate trial in which a plaintiff suffering from non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was awarded $289 million by a San Francisco jury, the judge, on October 22, 2018, has conditionally denied Monsanto’s motion for new trial and denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).  This decision …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Bungles Real Party-in-Interest Analysis

collateral estoppel fed circuit watch IPR patent PTAB real party in interest

On September 7, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.,[1] representing another case in the growing case law of IPRs and specifically, the time-bar application and collateral estoppel. Worlds Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,856 (‘856), 8,082,501 (‘501), and 8,145,998 (‘998).  All are directed to methods and …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Different Evidence + Different Standards of Review = Different Validity Result

102 anticipation fed circuit watch patent prior art standard of review

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit presented an interesting paradox in patent validity challenges, especially when the same parties bring forth essentially the same issues, but have different results in different federal agency or judicial reviews, as was seen in Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.,[1] decided on September 13, 2018. …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Opioid Addiction Drug Patent Not Obvious

103 fed circuit watch motivation to combine obviousness patent POSITA

On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC,[1] in what turns out to be a fairly straightforward analysis of an obviousness case under 35 U.S.C. §103.  The facts are as follows. Orexo owns U.S. Patent No. 8,940,330 (‘330), which describes opioid treatment generally, and …

Continue Reading