Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Obviousness = Equivalence? Saint-Gobain v. Siemens

Saint-Gobain Ceramics (“S-G”) has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fed. Cir. panel below, 647 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) in which the panel decision refused to reverse a district court decision that instructed the jury that it could … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of Equivalents | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Classen Immunotherapeutics v. Biogen Idec: Corrected Opinion Likely?

On August 31, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Fed. Cir. (Rader, Newman, Moore) revisited the court’s 2009 summary affirmance that the claims of three Classen patents were not directed to patentable subject matter. (A copy is at the end … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC

By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas & Co, Warlingham, UK Those prosecuting patent applications before the USPTO, the EPO and other examining patent offices confront on a daily basis objections of the kind: “A is known … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Caraco

Today (June 27, 2010), the Supreme Court granted cert. in yet another patent appeal, Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., v. Novo Nordisk, (Supreme Ct. 10-844). Earlier this month, I did an extensive post on the decision below, in which the Fed. … Continue reading

Posted in Hatch-Waxman | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment