Posts Tagged ‘IP law tools’

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

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015

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 s. 112, para. 1 portion of the decision deserves some attention. This is particularly true in the written description requirement (WDR) era the biotech industry has been living in since the Ariad decision enshrined the WDR as an effective claim killer.  Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies, App. No 2013, -1029, -1376 (Fed. Cir., December 15, 2014) (a copy is available at the end of this post).

Trying to make a long decision short, Promega asserted patents claiming kits having primers that would co-amplify a set of at least three STR loci wherein the set of loci are selected from the sets of loci consisting of D3S1539, D19S253…etc. As you might imagine, Life Technologies, these claims were treated as closed, and Life Technologies easily avoided infringing them.

(more…)

Chisum Patent Academy Close To Full

Monday, January 5th, 2015

The Chisum Patent Academy has three seats remaining in its March 5-6, 2015 Advanced Patent Law Seminar in Cincinnati, Ohio. The two-day roundtable seminar is limited to a total of ten participants to maximize opportunities for interactive discussion and debate.  All sessions are led by treatise authors and educators Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller. Coverage focuses on recent significant patent decisions of the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Topics currently planned for discussion include:

  • The Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. decision on patent-eligible subject matter and Federal Circuit decisions applying Alice Corp.;
  • The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Commil USA concerning the intent requirement for inducing infringement;
  • The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel to review the propriety of post-patent expiration royalties;
  • The Supreme Court’s pending decision in Teva v. Sandoz on standard of review for patent claim construction;
  • The Federal Circuit’s grant of en banc review in SCA Hygiene to determine whether the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision changed the law of laches as a defense to patent infringement;
  • “Patent Practice Gone Wrong”:  Lessons from Patent Malpractice, Exceptional Case and Rule 11 Sanctions, and Inequitable Conduct Cases;
  • Patent Claim Construction and Definiteness in the Wake of Nautilus (and Anticipating Teva); and
  • Inter Partes Review: Two-Year Snapshot and Lessons from Case Studies.

No advance preparation is expected or required. The Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Continuing Legal Education has approved the seminar for 12.0 hours CLE instruction.

For additional details on the venue, topics, and registration form, click here or e-mail info@chisum.com

 

Revised 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Released by PTO

Tuesday, December 16th, 2014

On Monday, December 15th, the Patent Office released revised “Guidance” on the evaluation of subject matter patent-eligibility under s. 101. (A copy is available at the end of this post.) The “Guidance” is an attempt to unify the analyses that were set forth in earlier Guidelines post-Mayo and post-Alice, and apply to all classes of inventions. After stripping away the introductory material, and the case law summaries, there are only a few pages of substantive guidance.

The most important change to the notorious March 4th “Life Sciences Guidelines” is summarized in the Flowchart on page 9 and in section 3B. If a composition is a “nature-based product,” it is analyzed in step 2B to see if it is “markedly different” from “its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state.” However, the revised Guidance pointedly drops the requirement that the product be structurally different. Now “markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function and/or other properties and will be evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis.” That is a big “or”:

(more…)

Commil USA v. Cisco Systems – Induced Infringement In For Clarification

Monday, December 8th, 2014

Supreme Court granted cert. to resolve the question of whether or not a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense against a charge of inducing infringement. The question appears to rest on Judge Newman’s characterization given in her dissent from the majority opinion (Proust, O’Malley). (A copy of this decision can be found at the end of this post.) However, the majority opinion appears more nuanced to me:

“Under our case law, it is clear that a good-faith belief of non-infringement is relevant evidence that ends to show that an accused infringer lacked the intent required to be held liable for induced infringement.”

I read this as simply stating that the belief can provide evidence of lack of specific intent to induce acts of infringement. The evidence may be “strong,” such as a competent opinion rendered before the offending acts, or “weak,” e.g. the opinion of a non-attorney or a just incompetent opinion. In fact, the majority makes an effort to “spank”‘ Judge Newman in footnote 1:

(more…)