Court Finds Dow Claims Clearly Indefinite

In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims reciting a limitation that could be calculated in several ways indefinite where the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history failed to indicate which method should be used. For those wondering whether the “reasonable certainty” standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision will have any real-world impact, this case shows that it can, since the Federal Circuit previously upheld the same claims under the “insolubly ambiguous” standard.  Continue reading this entry

Parsing USPTO Petitions Data

The USPTO has launched a Petitions Timeline that provides information on the types of petitions that can be filed at each stage of prosecution, the average time to decision and grant rate, and the deciding office. While some of the most interesting petitions may fall under the catch-all categories of “questions not specifically provided for” (petitions under 37 CFR 1.181) and  “invoking the supervisory authority of the Director” (petitions under 37 CFR 1.182), the USPTO petitions data do reveal some interesting points. Continue reading this entry

Amgen And Apotex Do The Biosimilar Patent Dance

Amgen has filed a complaint under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), asserting that a biosimilar application filed by Apotex, Inc. infringes two of its patents. Although several complaints have invoked the BPCIA, this may be the first one in which the patent dance provisions have been followed. Continue reading this entry

PTAB Denies Institution Of Kyle Bass's Ampyra Patent Challenge

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has put an end to Kyle Bass’s Ampyra patent challenge, by denying institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. While many were hoping the PTAB would render a decision based on the “improper purpose” of the challenge, the PTAB decisions are based on one of the more substantive reasons the patent owner raised in its Preliminary Responses.

Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Expands Direct Divided Infringement

In an en banc, per curiam decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit broadened the circumstances under which a party can be liable for direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) even if it does not perform all steps of a method claim. While the decision was rendered in a case involving methods for delivering content over the internet, it has important implications for pharmaceutical and biotechnology method patents.

Continue reading this entry