Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings – Revenge of the Chemist Judges II

Posted on August 3, 2017 by Warren Woessner

Before reading this post, please read my post of July 19, 2017 about Millennium Pharms. v. Sandoz, and you will “get” the title. Judges Lourie and Newman both dissented from refusal of the court to rehear the holding in Schering … Continue reading →

Posted in Inherency | 1 Comment

Inequitable Conduct Intent Prong Due to Litigation Misconduct

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Warren Woessner

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Merus N.V., Appeal No. 2016-1346 (Fed. Cir., July 27, 2017), a split three-judge panel of Prost, Wallach and Newman (Newman dissenting) affirmed the district court’s ruling that claim 1 of Regeneron’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,502,018 is … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Leave a comment

Millennium Pharm. v. Sandoz, Inc. – Revenge of the Chemical Judges

Posted on July 19, 2017 by Warren Woessner

In the 2003 panel decision in Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., the panel rejected “the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition [of the claim element not found] in the prior art.” The claims were directed to a bioactive metabolite … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | 1 Comment

The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics LLC – Time to Redefine “Inventive Concept”?

Posted on July 5, 2017 by Warren Woessner

Ariosa was a decision that essentially held that the novel discovery of a naturally-occurring phenomenon could not per se meet the Mayo/Alice requirement for an inventive concept, even though it was of “groundbreaking importance” in advancing medicine. The claims appealed in … Continue reading →