Category Archives: Litigation Issues

Vanda v. Roxane Labs. – Are Two Natural Laws Better Than One?

As you will recall, in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim reciting a natural law had to have other non-conventional steps to pass muster under s. 101. The natural law in Mayo was the correlation between … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Federal Court, Hatch-Waxman, Litigation Issues, Obviousness, Section 101 | 2 Comments

UCB v. Yeda R&D Co. – No “Safe Harbor” for Unamended Claims

UCB sued Yeda for a DJ of non-infringement of US Patent No. 6,090,923 [Appeal No. 2015-1957 (Fed. Cir. September 8, 2016)].The main claim in question was directed to “A monoclonal antibody which specifically binds a human cytotoxin [having X properties].” … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Issues, Post-Grant Issues, Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Leave a comment

Apotex v Wyeth Explores Structural Obviousness

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. Apotex filed an IPR petition that … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Litigation Issues, Prior Art | Leave a comment

Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. – Cert. Denied

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Litigation Issues, Organization/Business News | Leave a comment