Monthly Archives: January 2015

Myriad Settles – Questions Remain

Yesterday, Myriad announced it has settled the BRCA assay litigations that had been ongoing—and not going well– with Pathway Genomics, Invitae and Gene by Gene (and I assume….Ambry and Labcorp). Although I was just about at the brink of shouting … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TEVA v. SANDOZ – THE DISSENT AND THE ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY

In Teva v. Sandoz, decided yesterday by a 7-2 decision of the S. Ct., the lengthy dissent by Justices Alito and Thomas invoked the dreaded “zone of uncertainty” – a dangerous bar of shifting legal sands that defendants should not … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Teva v. Sandoz: “Just the facts, Ma’am”

Effectively reversing Cybor Corp., which flatly stated that a lower court’s claim construction is a question of law which is to be reviewed de novo by the Fed. Cir., yesterday the Supreme Court held 7-2 that questions of fact resolved … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Promega v. Life Technologies – “Too Much Of Nothing?”

Although much more attention has been focused on the portion of this recent Fed. Cir. decision that held a defendant could “induce itself” into infringement under s. 271(1)(f), by sending one part of a kit to be assembled abroad, the … Continue reading

Posted in Section 112(2) - Indefiniteness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment