Sometimes a court cites long-standing precedent in deciding how to handle a case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit leveraged a decision it rendered only last year in deciding a patent case between Apple Inc., and Omni Medsci Inc.
The Hatch-Waxman Act provides a safe harbor that allows importation of an FDA-regulated article that would otherwise be deemed a case of patent infringement so long as the importation is for purposes reasonably related to obtaining regulatory approval. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for importation of heart valves in a manner that Edwards argued was infringement under Hatch-Waxman, but while the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 against Edwards, the dissenting opinion recommended an appeal to a full 12-judge panel that could reverse this outcome.
The Hatch-Waxman Act provides a safe harbor that allows importation of an FDA-regulated article that would otherwise be deemed a case of patent infringement so long as the importation is for purposes reasonably related to obtaining regulatory approval. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for importation of heart valves in a manner that Edwards argued was infringement under Hatch-Waxman, but while the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 against Edwards, the dissenting opinion recommended an appeal to a full 12-judge panel that could reverse this outcome.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has released a guidance to aid patent examiners in dealing with questions of obviousness in patent applications, but patent attorney Michael Borella told BioWorld that this new guidance could resurrect the law of unintended consequences. Borella, a partner in the Chicago office of McDonnell Boehnen Hulburt & Berghoff LLP, said the guidance might lead to more inappropriate rejections of patent claims for obviousness, and thus make the process of obtaining a clean patent more difficult, not less.
The history of med-tech patent litigation is replete with long-running conflicts that test the willpower of the participants, which increasingly seems to be the case in a series of lawsuits between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published new enablement guidelines Jan. 10 to provide more consistency across technologies to ensure patent applications truly enable the breadth of their claims in keeping with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last year in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi SA.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published new enablement guidelines Jan. 10 to provide more consistency across technologies to ensure patent applications truly enable the breadth of their claims in keeping with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last year in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi SA.
Patent challenges for radiotherapy equipment might not make the splash that in vitro diagnostic patents have, but Elekta AB and Zap Surgical Inc., have been locked in a dispute over an Elekta patent for the past four years.
“Show us your work” is basically the message the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sent to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it vacated a decision by the board in an ex parte review of rejected patent claims submitted by Theripion Inc. While the Aug. 10 Federal Circuit opinion that remanded the case is nonprecedential, the appellate court made it clear that the PTAB must explain its reasoning for whatever conclusions it reaches.
