Chisum and Mueller Dissect The Recent En Banc Decision In Apple v Samsung – “Smartphone Wars: Federal Circuit Shenanigans?”

October 31st, 2016

This is a guest post by Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller.

The Federal Circuit’s October 7, 2016 en banc decision, 2016 WL 5864573, concerning onchismposte phase of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung smartphone patent wars, may turn out to be the court’s most controversial decision ever. We intend to explore this decision in depth during upcoming Chisum Patent Academy seminars. Meanwhile, for the benefit of Academy graduates and other patent professionals, we circulate here a detailed abstract of the decision, prepared by Academy co-founder Donald Chisum for future inclusion in his Patent Law Digest and the Chisum on Patents treatise. Click to download the detailed abstract.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Believes In The Patent System

October 27th, 2016



USPTOHillary Clinton has released a position paper: “Initiative on Technology and Innovation” which contains two paragraphs on actions she would promote to reduce litigation by trolls and strengthen the USPTO.

Read the rest of this entry »

It Isn’t Good: Dx Case Outcomes

October 4th, 2016

slidimageThis is a guest post from Dr. Leslie Fischer.

The following slides are from her presentation at the Bio IP & Diagnostics Symposium.

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

September 26th, 2016

iStock_000007770475_SmallAs 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 the concentration of the metabolite of the immunosuppressive drug and the efficacy of the drug – unpleasant side effects at the high end of the recited range and lack of efficacy at the low end. The Mayo Court wrote: “We need not, and do not, decide whether were the steps at issue here less conventional, these features of the claims [the administering, determining and recognition steps] would prove sufficient to invalidate them.” It was unnerving that the invalidated claims were method-of-treatment claims.

In his opinion in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-schizophrenia drug Iloperidone, Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1973-GMS; 14-757-GMS (D.Del., 2016), Judge Sleet upheld the validity  of the compound and the method claims in Reissue Patent No. 39,198 and US Patent No. 8,586,610. Read the rest of this entry »