Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.


Posts by Joseph Robinson


Factual Allegations on Inventive Concept Preclude Dismissal of Complaint Under § 101

In Atrix Software v. Green Shades Software, Aatrix sued Green Shades for infringement, and Green Shades moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, holding: (1) claim 1 …

Despite Discovery Violations, Amneal Prevails on against Merck in Nasonex Patent Dispute

Merck appealed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,127,353 (“the ‘353 patent”), which is directed toward mometasone furoate monohydrate (“MFM”), commercially used in …

Federal Circuit vacates PTAB decision for failure to explain reason claims were invalid

Unlike the Board’s anticipation determinations, which contravened the only permissible findings that could be drawn from the prior art under the proper constructions of the relevant …

PTAB Ruling Tainted by Hindsight; Failure to Consider Undisputed Commercial Success

The Federal Circuit also remanded to the Board further consideration of the undisputed evidence presented by Polaris that its ATVs were a commercial success. Polaris presented undisputed …

CAFC says PTAB Entitled to Weigh the Credibility of Experts, Ignore Attorney Argument

Elbit’s expert argued that the asserted claims were obvious because the two-step and three-step methods are “mathematically equivalent” in that the three-step method simply reorders steps …

Nordt Succeeds in Appeal to Federal Circuit on Knee-Brace Application

Despite its ultimate conclusion, the Court observed that Nordt failed to “persuasively or precisely” articulate to the Board “what structural limitation is imparted” by the “injection molded” …

Federal Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction

Turning to the injunction, Infineon was enjoined from undertaking certain activities concerning products in the Exclusive Field that practice the licensed patents. The Court vacated this provision …

Distribution Agreement Considered a Commercial Offer and On-Sale Bar

The Federal Circuit reiterated that the on-sale bar does not exempt commercial agreements between a patentee and its supplier or distributor. It is the commercial character of …

CAFC affirms PTA calculation because patentee did not properly request early national stage examination

The Federal Circuit found that Actelion was required to make an express request to commence early national stage examination. Actelion’s statement “earnestly soliciting early examination,” which …

Litigants May Not Use a DJ to Obtain Piecemeal Adjudication

The Federal circuit heard the case on AbbVie Inc. v. MedImmune Ltd. AbbVie and MedImmune entered a development and licensing agreement in 1995. The agreement stemmed from a …

Board Improperly Interpreted Incorporation by Reference

While the Court affirmed several of the Board’s validity findings, it reversed the determination that the ’455 PCT qualifies as prior art. At issue was the extent …

Disclaimer Before Institution of IPR Results In Adverse Judgment And Estoppel

A disclaimer of challenged patent claims before an IPR is instituted may result in a final adverse judgment against the patent owner, triggering estoppel provisions that preclude …

Patent Cannot Retroactively Be Filed As Divisional Application to Avoid Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

To fall within the safe-harbor protection against obviousness-type double patenting, a patent application must be properly designated as a divisional application before the patent issues. Attempts to …

Federal Circuit Reverses and Remands Board Decision Upholding Patentability

In an appeal from an IPR in which the Board upheld the patentability of several patent claims, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded to the …

Federal Circuit says Claims for Summarizing Information are Not Abstract

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of LG‘s motion for summary judgment that various claims of Core’s patents were directed to patent …