If you subscribe to USPTO email updates like I do, then you probably received an email recently announcing that the “USPTO Launches Updated Patent Litigation Toolkit and Hosts Free Webinar about Toolkit Resources.” When one of my colleagues asked why the USPTO is disseminating information on how to “challenge” patents that they granted with a presumption of validity, I decided to open up the toolkit to see what I would find. Continue reading this entry
On September 17, 2015, the USPTO held the first “bicoastal” Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership meeting, with live participation from the USPTO’s main campus in Alexandria, VA and from San Jose University in San Jose, CA. The last item on the agenda was a panel on the Mayo-Myriad Guidance, so I joined the meeting by WebEx to hear what the panelists had to say about the current state of patent eligibility rejections and how to overcome them.
In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the test for patent indefiniteness set forth in the recent Supreme Court decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, and found that claims reciting an “unobtrusive” display were invalid. In so doing, the Federal Circuit noted the “highly subjective” nature of the claim language and lack of guidance in the specification and prosecution history as to the meaning of the term. Continue reading this entry
Thanks to Adam Denley, Ph.D., Senior Associate at Freehills Patent Attorneys in Australia, for alerting me to the September 5, 2014 decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia upholding the patent eligibility of isolated nucleic acids, and for letting me share his initial summary here.
In two decisions issued under the same name (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of the Orange Book-listed patents for Lysteda®, but found that they were not infringed by either Apotex’s or Watson’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). In this article, I focus on the decision relating to the Apotex ANDAs, and the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the patentee’s burden when an ANDA does not answer the infringement question. (You can read my article on the non-obviousness analysis here.)