Some patent litigation cases don’t require a deep effort to interpret claims, but the litigation between Agilent Technologies Inc., and Dionex Softron GmbH, forced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to determine whether a written description adequately captures the use of a piston in a liquid chromatograph to avoid nullification of the claim.
The doctrine of patent assignor estoppel is not found in the U.S. statute, but that omission has led to only limited litigation over the doctrine despite the notoriety of the case of Hologic v. Minerva. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit reinforced the understanding that an assigned patent is still in force when the disputed claim is not seen has having been materially broadened by the time a patent has been granted in its final form, thus closing one of the principal contractual questions surrounding patents that are handed off from one device maker to another.
The question of whether an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm should enjoy the status of an inventor has been making the rounds in various nations, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected the notion based on a plain reading of the statute. The court said that the statute is unambiguous in that only natural persons can claim inventorship, but the question will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have an opportunity to put this debate to rest.
Patent litigation is notoriously drawn out in some instances, as is the case with disputes between Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX), of Natick, Mass., and Nevro Corp., of Redwood City, Calif. However, the two announced Aug. 1 that they have come to terms over several lawsuits, with each enjoying the right to practice some of the disputed patents and Nevro taking in a net payment of $85 million.
Patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has proven controversial for patents in the U.S. thanks in no small part to Supreme Court jurisprudence in cases such as Alice v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus. In the latest development, the Court has declined to hear the American Axle case, which some see as presenting an exceptionally low bar for subject matter eligibility, leaving many observers despairing of any chance of restoring a decent patent system for makers of in vitro diagnostics and other items that are among the mainstays of the medical device industry.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled again on the appointments clause questions evolving from a patent dispute between Arthrex Inc. and Smith & Nephew Inc., this time in connection with a former acting director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled again on the appointments clause questions evolving from a patent dispute between Arthrex Inc. and Smith & Nephew Inc., this time in connection with a former acting director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
Ethicon Endosurgery Inc. and Intuitive Surgical Inc. have been sparring in the courts over patents for robot surgery systems for some time, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled on yet another of those disputes.
Acquisitions in the diagnostics space incurs some interesting liabilities, given recent case law regarding subject matter eligibility, but this is not the only trap door for the acquiring company. Roche Diagnostics Corp., of Indianapolis, managed to avoid an induced patent infringement charge by Meso Scale Diagnostics LLC in a recent hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with Roche’s 2007 acquisition of Bioveris Corp.
The U.S. Federal Circuit’s denial Feb. 11 of an en banc rehearing in a case that could undermine label carveouts and slow the launch of generics is the topic of hallway chatter at this week’s annual conference of the Association for Accessible Medicines.
