#FedCir also rejects as “meritless” C’s argument that Director delegating time-extension for FWDs in case of joinder to PTAB violates Appointments Clause. No evidence of contrary Congressional intent for Director to so delegate & Director is vested with “broad rulemaking powers.” twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Cywee v Google 2/8 #FedCir affirms 2 IPR rulings that C’s claims unpatentable for obviousness. C’s untimeliness/Due Process arguments “meritless.” Nothing requires that Director review of PTAB institution & FWDs per Arthrex be accomplished within statutory 3-mo & 1-yr deadlines.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) February 8, 2023
Cywee v Google 2/8 #FedCir affirms 2 IPR rulings that C’s claims unpatentable for obviousness. C’s untimeliness/Due Process arguments “meritless.” Nothing requires that Director review of PTAB institution & FWDs per Arthrex be accomplished within statutory 3-mo & 1-yr deadlines.
In re Google 2/1/23 #FedCir mandamuses WDTex (Albright J) to xfer venue to NDCal, “clearly” the “center of gravity” here. DCt erred on multiple xfer factors. Jawbone’s earbud invention & G’s accused device were developed in NDCal. J rented office in Waco TX only 1 mo before suit.
A new NYTimes article criticizes big pharma for "gaming" the patent system, with particular focus on AbbVie's Humira: nytimes.com/2023/01/28/bus… Are reverse settlements of litigation (that antitrust law doesn't seem to prevent) as much at fault here as patent evergreening practice?
PMC v Apple 1/20 #FedCir 2-1 affirms EDTx: P's patent unenforceable for prosecution laches. Case "very similar" & "more egregious" than Hyatt. P filed 328 GATT-bubble apps. Unreasonable delay despite Consolidation Agrmt w/ PTO. Dissent: A didn't develop accused prod until after.
This is a good teaching case on patent claim interpretation and satisfying the definiteness requirement, authored by #FedCir Judge Chen. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Grace v Chandler 1/12 #FedCir resuscitates G's oil drilling viscometer patent. "Enlarged chamber" NOT indefinite. Although not term of art & not explicitly defined, intrinsic evidence -> "large enough" to do recited fn: avoid co-mingling 2 fluids. SDTx erred in using dictionary.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) January 12, 2023
Grace v Chandler 1/12 #FedCir resuscitates G's oil drilling viscometer patent. "Enlarged chamber" NOT indefinite. Although not term of art & not explicitly defined, intrinsic evidence -> "large enough" to do recited fn: avoid co-mingling 2 fluids. SDTx erred in using dictionary.
Instead, defendant (here TP-Link) must show that patentee “could have brought suit” in preferred venue (here CDCal) independent of def’s consent. FRCP 1404 fairness/convenience standard applies, not defendant’s unilateral wish. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
In re Stingray 1/10 #FedCir grants mandamus to resolve deep DCt split, holding that defendant (here, foreign corp sued in EDTx) canNOT defeat personal jurisdiction under FRCP 4(k)(2) by unilaterally consenting post-suit to be sued in a different, preferred district (here, CDCal).
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) January 10, 2023
In re Stingray 1/10 #FedCir grants mandamus to resolve deep DCt split, holding that defendant (here, foreign corp sued in EDTx) canNOT defeat personal jurisdiction under FRCP 4(k)(2) by unilaterally consenting post-suit to be sued in a different, preferred district (here, CDCal).
In re Google 1/9/23 #FedCir vacates PTO ex parte determination that search query filtering method claims wd hv bn obvious. PTAB didn’t explain how to modify prior art. “Squint as we may, we do not see the justifications invoked by the PTO on appeal reflected in the record below.”
Dionex v Agilent 1/6/23 #FedCir affirms interference priority to jr pty A. A's spec supports Bd's BRC of claims D copied. Prior actual RTP testimony by A inventor corroborated by 2 colleagues witnessing successful prototype. No negative infer from lack of A co-inventor testimony.
MFA v Alaska Airlines 12/29 #FedCir 2-1 denies interlocutory appeal of protective order that denied M’s in-house counsel access to A’s proprietary source code. M can hire outside counsel or experts. Dispute can be reviewed in final appeal. Collateral order exception is N/A here.
#FedCir (Lourie J) also affirms DCt’s judgment in ANDA litigation that Genentech’s Liver Function Test (LFT) patents would have been obvious. Newman J dissents without opinion. twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Genetech v Sandoz 12/22 #FedCir 2-1 affirms no direct infringement of G’s drug-drug interaction (DDI) pats req’g IPF lung trmt with both pirfenidone & fluvoxamine. DCt properly considered S’s proposed label (give both) AND physician testimony re past practice (do not give both).
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) December 22, 2022
Genetech v Sandoz 12/22 #FedCir 2-1 affirms no direct infringement of G’s drug-drug interaction (DDI) pats req’g IPF lung trmt with both pirfenidone & fluvoxamine. DCt properly considered S’s proposed label (give both) AND physician testimony re past practice (do not give both).
Mosaic v Ridge 12/20 #FedCir reverses DCt’s SJ of anticipation invalidity of R’s patent (asserted in counterclaim). Material fact q’s re whether M’s product was s102(b) on sale prior art. Documentary corroboration by M product’s inventor requires jury to assess his credibility.
Plastipak v PremiumWaters 12/19: in rare inventorship decision, #FedCir reverses DCt’s SJ of s102(f)(preAIA) invalidity of 9 pat’s. Many material fact q’s for jury re non-joined F’s contribution to plastic bottle design. Mere contributing state of art isn’t sharing in conception.
Adasa v AveryDennison 12/16 #FedCir affirms D.Or.’s SJ that claim to a hardware-based RFID serial number data structure IS s101 patent-eligible; enables technological improvements to RFID tag commissioning. BUT remands for trial on 102/103 validity in view of prior art: fact q’s.
Google v Hammond 12/8/22 #FedCir reverses PTAB in part. Collateral estoppel applies to render obvious 2 claims of H’s ‘816 patent. Claims of H’s previously invalidated related ‘483 pat (same spec) were identical as to issues of patentability, despite slightly different language.
TreeHouse v ValveCorp 11/30 #FedCir affirms DCt’s striking patentee expert testimony that wrongly relied on broader “plain & ordinary meaning” of “character-enabled network sites,” rather than parties’ requested construction, which DCt had adopted. SJ of no infringement affirmed.
Thus #FedCir makes precedential its conclusion in VirnetX (2019 non-prec). Patentee can’t tailor/“shapeshift” claim meaning through argument in IPR; instead we have amendment. NB: disclaimer made in IPR doesn’t bind that PTAB, but IS binding in *later* proceedings (PTO or DCt). twitter.com/patent_maven/s…
Cupp v Trend 11/16 #FedCir affirms s103 unpatentability of C’s 3 patents. “Security system processor” is “different” from phone processor but need not be “remote” (could be in single device). *New precedent*: C’s contrary disclaimer in the IPR did not bind PTAB; properly ignored.
— Janice Mueller (@patent_maven) November 16, 2022
©2023 Janice Mueller - All Rights Reserved
(855) 324-4786 | janice@chisum.com
Website design by Bluegrass Internet Services