Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

The United States Solicitor General (SG) on Wednesday accepted the U.S. Supreme Court’s invitation to file an amicus brief regarding Amgen’s petition for certiorari in its case against Sanofi. Amgen is seeking review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) decision invalidating antibody patent claims based on a lack of enablement for genus claims. The High Court invited the SG to file a brief in April and, on September 21, the SG recommended that the Court deny the petition and said Amgen’s argument that the CAFC “erred by treating enablement as a question of law and by examining the full scope of the claims in assessing whether they are fully enabled…. lack merit.”

The written description requirement is really the backbone of the quid pro quo between the public and the patent applicant. In exchange for information about an invention, society is willing to grant the applicant a patent, which conveys exclusive rights for a limited period of time to what is claimed, not described. But the description provided in the specification must demonstration that the applicant really has an invention in the first place and what the boundaries of that invention are—this is the written description requirement in lay terms.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals announced today that it will appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June decision invalidating its patent for a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the CAFC denied its request to rehear the case. The CAFC in June vacated a different three-judge panel’s January opinion upholding Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405. In the original ruling, Chief Judge Moore had dissented from the majority; in the rehearing, Moore authored the opinion vacating the January decision, with Judge Linn dissenting.

In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday, September 16, David E. Boundy is backing Chestek PLLC’s appeal asking the CAFC to vacate a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) judgment that upheld an examiner’s refusal of the mark CHESTEK LEGAL for failure to comply with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “domicile address requirement.” This requirement originates from the USPTO’s proposed rule issued on February 15, 2019, and subsequent final rule published on July 2, 2019. The changes were ostensibly intended to crack down on fraudulent trademark filings, which have posed a significant problem for the Office in recent years, by requiring that foreign applicants engage U.S. counsel.

Following a remand on Appointments Clause issues under United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling finding all challenged claims of Polaris Innovations Limited’s patents unpatentable and denying Polaris’ motions to terminate. The decision is precedential and authored by Judge Stoll. Polaris’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,505 and 7,405,993 are directed to computer memory. In May 2016, Polaris filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation for infringement of certain claims of the two patents. NVIDIA then filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging some claims as invalid. A final written decision on the petition involving the ‘993 patent issued on December 19, 2018, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. A final written decision on the petition involving the ‘505 patent issued on December 4, 2018, likewise finding all challenged claims unpatentable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision affirming a Virginia district court’s grant of summary judgment for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with respect to SawStop Holding LLC’s challenge of the denial of patent term adjustment (PTA) for two of its patents. The CAFC agreed with the district court that PTA was not warranted because the claim at hand did not issue under a decision that reversed an adverse determination of patentability. Instead, “‘the claim remain[ed] under rejection after the Board decision’ and ‘the patent only issue[d] after further prosecution’ and amendment.”

Last year, there was a great amount of confidence among those in intellectual property circles that the U.S. Supreme Court might finally provide some much-needed clarity to Section 101 subject matter patentability after a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in American Axle v. Neapco Holdings. On the second day of IPWatchdog LIVE 2022, panelists at the breakout session titled “Where Do We Go From Here on Patent Eligibility After American Axle” discussed what opportunities were left for fixing patent eligibility law after the Supreme Court denied cert in that case.

On September 6, New Vision Gaming and Development Inc. (New Vision) filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on return from remand after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied its request for Director Review. The case relates to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision canceling all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,325,806 (‘806 patent) and was previously appealed to the CAFC. But since the last appeal, a report demonstrating evidence that PTAB judges are influenced by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leadership gives new weight to New Vision’s arguments, says the brief.

In early August, Senator Tillis (R-NC) proposed legislation called the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, (S. 4734). US Inventor wrote a response to this legislation showing how it will destroy already damaged patent protection for U.S. software inventors and startups. Included in this destruction will be some of the most important inventions to U.S. technological development, economic growth and national security, like artificial intelligence, security systems, block chain, quantum computing, and much more, including anything that could compete with Big Tech’s core technology.  This legislation is dangerously misguided. In a recent interview with IP Watchdog, Tillis was asked about some of the fatal concerns we identified in our response. Tillis brushed those concerns off by saying that he doesn’t want to hear complaints without solutions.  Fair enough. 

Inventor Gilbert Hyatt, who has been embroiled in litigation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for decades, lost his latest case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) when the court ruled today that an examiner’s restriction requirement was permitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.129 (“Rule 129”). The case relates to Hyatt’s U.S. Patent Application No. 08/435,938, which was filed on May 5, 1995, and falls within the so-called “GATT Bubble.” The GATT Bubble is the term applied to patent applications filed but not yet granted before the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which amended the U.S. patent term to 20 years from the effective filing date, took effect on June 8, 1995.

On September 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., authored by Circuit Judge Sharon Prost, affirming the District of Delaware’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint filed by Arendi under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware, one of the most popular U.S. district courts for patent infringement litigation.

On September 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that the PTAB did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims raised sua sponte by the Board on Nike and that substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s obviousness analysis. The decision comes after two prior rulings by the CAFC in related cases between Nike and Adidas. The present appeal concerned the PTAB’s determination that proposed substitute claim 49 of Nike’s U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 (‘011 patent) was unpatentable as obvious.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday denied a request for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal of a February CAFC decision that held the Office’s application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. In its February decision, the CAFC held that “applying section 2(c) to bar registration of [Steve] Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.” Elster attempted to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for use on T-shirts, but an examiner refused the application, saying that section 2(c) bars registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual” without the individual’s “written consent.”

On August 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in INVT SPE LLC v. International Trade Commission (ITC) affirming the ITC’s ruling that Apple and other respondents in a Section 337 investigation did not infringe upon INVT’s patent claims covering wireless communications systems and that there was no Section 337 violation. While the Federal Circuit did side with INVT’s arguments that its patent claims were drawn to device capability and not actual operation, the CAFC opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Raymond Chen, found that INVT did not produce evidence that the accused devices possessed the capability covered by the patent claims.

On August 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta Inc. affirming rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated patent claims covering a method and apparatus for radiation therapy of tumors. The appellate court, which issued a modified version of the opinion today to correct some minor formatting problems, also determined that Best Medical International (BMI) lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s invalidation of claim 1 of BMI’s patent.