Archive for the ‘Federal Court’ Category

Apotex v Wyeth Explores Structural Obviousness

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

Lately, I’ve been feeling that the only case law engaging enough to write about has involved S. 101 issues, so it was a welcome break to comment on some classic principles of organic chemistry.

iStock_000002291402Small(2)Apotex filed an IPR petition that Wyeth’s U.S. Patent No. 8,879,828 was obvious in view of four references. The Board granted the petition but went on to find that the antibiotic compositions claimed in the patent were not obvious. The Fed. Cir. agreed that the Board’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence  (Appeal No.  2015-1851 (Fed. Cir., August 6, 2016)  —Judges Lourie, Wallach and Hughes, Lourie writing).

(more…)

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc. – Defining “Common Sense”

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

For some time, I have wanted to do a post on this recent Fed. Cir. decision (Appeal No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. , August 10,  2016),) in which the Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Moore, Linn and O’Malley (writing) reversed a PTAB decision finding most of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 obvious over a single prior art reference, U.S. Patent .No. 5,859,636 (“Pandit”). Claim 1 is more than a page long, and I will not try to describe it in any detail, except to say that it can be exemplified by the use of a computer program to build an address book.

(more…)

Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. – Cert. Denied

Monday, April 18th, 2016

Today the Supreme Court declined to hear Limelight’s petition for cert. on the question of whether an accused infringer may be held liable for direct infringement of a claim to a method where multiple parties perform the steps of the method.

On August 13, 2016, the S. Ct. remanded the en banc decision of the Fed. Cir. that set forth the law of divided infringement under s. 271(a), and found that Limelight directly infringed U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,703. The court held that an entity will be found responsible for others’ performance of method steps “(1) where that entity directs or controls others’ performance, [or] (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise.”  (more…)

Rader Steps Down – Prost Steps Up

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Judge Randall Rader will step down as Chief Judge of the Fed. Cir. on May 30th, and Judge Sharon Prost will replace him. Judge Rader will remain active as a “Circuit Court Judge.”

As Chief Judge, Rader bought sheer intelligence and coherence to a number of difficult decisions. Although I have criticized his Bilski dissent – which bought the cult of the abstract idea to prominence, he also was among  the last of the defenders of a limited role for the written description requirement – a  legal battle eventually lost (See his concurrence in Novozyme v. DuPont Nutrition this year).

I guess I would have hoped for a Chief Justice with some scientific background – Judge Prost is an expert on Labor Relations, but I certainly wish her well as she prepares to lead the court into uncharted waters, with the Supreme Court poised to be the Neptune to her Ulysses.