Apotex v Wyeth Explores Structural Obviousness

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).

Read the rest of this entry »

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

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

BIO IP & Diagnostics Symposium

August 22nd, 2016

A guest post from Patent Docs.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) will be holding its fourth annual IP & Diagnostics Symposium from 8:15 am to 2:30 pm on September 29, 2016 at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town Hotel in Alexandria, VA.  The Symposium will review and evaluate the state of patent law for advanced molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine as well as explore the implications of developments in these fields for patenting in the broader biopharma sector.

Read the rest of this entry »

Takeaways from Chisum Patent Academy’s 2016 Seminars

August 16th, 2016

A guest post from Chisum Patent Academy.

On August 4-5 and 8-9, 2016 the Chisum Patent Academy held two advanced patent law roundtable seminars at the historic Mayflower Park Hotel in Seattle, Washington. In addition to covering recent “blockbuster” court decisions, our primary focus was “The Brave New World of IPR.” We emphasized repeatedly that the law and procedure of inter partes review is a moving target. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that on Friday, August 12, when it granted rehearing en banc in one of the IPR claim amendment cases analyzed during our seminar, In re Aqua Products, 823 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2016).

Read the rest of this entry »