Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Retired Judges File Amicus Brief in Support of Judge Newman
- Hikma v. Amarin at the Supreme Court: The Parties’ Opening Briefs
- Teva Pharmaceuticals International v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- USPTO Extends Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!)
- USPTO Announces That It Has Turned the Corner on Unexamined Application Backlog
about
Month: October 2019
-
By Michael Anderson and Michael Borella — August 27, 1890 WASHINGTON D.C. The ups and downs of Mr. Thomas A. Edison's inventions related to electrical lighting continue. After his U.S. Patent No. 223,898 for an "Electric Lamp" was found to be valid in the Circuit Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania, the case was…
-
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Open Source, Software Related Inventions, and Trade Secrets Committees will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "IP Protection for Data" on October 23, 2019, from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Brian Adams of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Ken Corsello of IBM, and Sameer Vadera of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP will…
-
By Michael Borella — Early today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the USPTO applies § 101 in examination and PTAB proceedings, this October Update is primarily an effort to clarify issues brought…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit earlier this week affirmed a District Court's decision invalidating almost all of the claims asserted against an ANDA filer, in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Nevertheless, because a claim was held invalid and infringed, the proposed generic compound is delayed from coming to market.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One person's attempt at judicial economy can be another person's impermissible shortcut, and when it arises in the context of a summary judgment motion of noninfringement, it can amount to legal (or at least procedural) error on appeal. Such is the case in NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc., decided last week…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS v. Rimfrost AS, the Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,028,877 and claims 1-20 of 9,078,905 to be unpatentable as obvious. The '877…
-
By Aaron Gin — The public comment period regarding patenting of artificial intelligence (AI), which was scheduled to close on October 11, 2019, has been extended until November 8, 2019. In a Notice posted August 27, 2019, USPTO Director Iancu sought public input on issues relating to AI-based inventions in an effort to determine whether…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced via an e-mail to its stakeholders and in a post on the Director's Form Blog that the Office had achieved its long-term goals of reducing first action pendency to less than 15 months and reducing total pendency to less than 24 months…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit overturned an obviousness determination in an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex Inc. The Court also reaffirmed its holdings in earlier-decided cases that applying the IPR portion of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to patents…
-
By Joshua Rich — On the first day of the 2019-20 term, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.,[1] a case raising the question of whether a patent applicant should be responsible to pay all of the PTO's attorneys' fees in a § 145 "appeal"; it did not go well for…
Patent Docs 