Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline – How to Keep Process Limitations out of Composition Claims

In the recent decision, Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Appeal. No. 2020-1054 (Fed. Cir., November 19, 2020), the panel dealt with an appeal by GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) from a district court decision that found infringement of Vectura’s claims directed to “composite active particles” of the type used to deliver drugs via dry powder inhalers. Claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,303,991 reads:

Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Prosecution Guidance from the Fed. Cir. – How to Forfeit Arguments During Your Appeal

Guest post from Tim Bianchi.

The Federal Circuit decided an appeal in an ex parte prosecution for Google last week, which may be of interest to patent prosecutors (In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1828, November 13, 2020)).

Google was prosecuting one of its gazillion patent applications and received a final rejection.  It appealed the final rejection to the PTAB, but Google didn’t like the Board’s decision, so it appealed that decision to the Fed. Cir.  The Federal Circuit decided that Google forfeited its right to certain arguments because they weren’t raised in ex parte prosecution.

Continue reading

Posted in Appeals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

C. R. Bard v. Angiodynamics – It’s a Labelled Injection Port, not a Label

The recent decision in C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics Inc., Appeal nos. 2019-1756 and 2019-1934 (Fed. Cir., November 10, 2020) is an example of a bad doctrine, patent eligibility, gone rogue. The panel’s ultimate decision that the claimed invention was not patent ineligible as an abstract idea should have required one paragraph of this opinion, not four pages (!). This opinion conflates the printed matter doctrine with the Mayo/Alice test in a manner that invokes a  legal chimera comprising more shock value than logic. Here is claim 1 of Bard’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,417:

Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged | Leave a comment

Immunex v. Sanofi-Aventis – The “Mystery Dance” of Claim Construction

In “Mystery Dance”, Elvis Costello  moans that he’s “tried and I’ve tried, and I’m still mystified” about the “Mystery Dance”, which probably has something to do about romance, but could easily describe the state of the relationship between appeals from the district courts to the Fed. Cir. and appeals to the Fed. Cir. from PTAB decisions. I let Immunex v. Sanofi, Appeal no. 2019-1749, 2019-1777 (Fed. Cir., October 13, 2020) sit on my desk for the last month because it looked to be a simple claim construction decision. Well, it is that, but quite a lot more.

Continue reading

Posted in Appeals | Tagged , , | Leave a comment