Posts Tagged: "Barry Herman"

In contrast to the Federal Circuit’s 2012 decisions in the context of pharmaceutical litigation, its decisions with respect to appeals from the Board were much less favorable to those seeking patent protection. This is likely the result of the different standard applied to Board decisions – while the question of obviousness is one of law and reviewed de novo, it is based on factual findings, and the appellant must do more than simply demonstrate that the Board’s decision was wrong. Instead, the appellant will prevail only if he/she can show that the decision was not based on “substantial evidence.” Moreover, unlike in district court litigation, the Patent Office is not required to establish obviousness by a “clear and convincing” standard.

A few trends were readily apparent in 2012. First, pharmaceutical patent holders in litigation fared well – in a series of cases, the Federal Circuit rejected obviousness attacks in pharmaceutical patent challenges on appeal from the district courts. Second, patent holders appealing decisions from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (whether it be an original application, a reexamination, or a reissue) fared poorly – the Federal Circuit affirmed several Board decisions finding chemical patent claims obvious. While these trends are not surprising, a third more subtle trend suggests chemical patents in district court litigation may be less susceptible to invalidation for obviousness post-KSR. In 2012, when the Federal Circuit reversed the obviousness decision below on a chemical patent, those reversals favored non-obviousness three to one.

In October, Life Science litigators Mary Bourke, Mark Pino, Kristen Cramer, Dana Severance and Daniel Attaway joined the firm from Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, an intellectual property law firm located in Delaware, which not lists 52 attorneys on their firm website. These laterals include three partners and two associates. Veteran IP litigators Barry Herman and Behrooz Shariati also joined the firm in June and July, respectively. According to the firm’s website Womble Carlyle now has 547 attorneys and 89 attorneys operating within a broadly defined Intellectual Property practice group.