The Supreme Court has declined to hear three cases that questioned the inter partes review (IPR) process for patent litigation, although the petition for cert for the Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.; Arthrocare Corp.; and the United States of America case is still pending. Should the Supreme Court pass on Arthrex, the remaining affected IPR cases will have to be relitigated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which may give those patent holders another chance to restore their patents.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled against Biogen Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., and in favor of Mylan NV, of Hertfordshire, U.K., in a patent dispute regarding Biogen’s blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate).
The patent lawsuit between Merck & Co. and Microspherix LLC began when the latter sued Merck for infringement of patents for brachytherapy in Merck’s implantable contraceptive device, but Merck was unable to prevail in an inter partes review (IRP) or in an appeal of the IPR at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After wading through questions about purported prior art, Merck failed to persuade the two courts that Microspherix’s non-provisional filing had strayed too far from the written description of the related provisional, thus handing Microspherix a win against its much larger rival in the market for drug delivery with microspheres.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has posted a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, SAS v. Iancu, and the first item on the PTO agenda is to formally require that an inter partes review (IPR) consist of an exhaustive review of all the claims contested by the petitioner.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has posted a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, SAS v. Iancu, and the first item on the PTO agenda is to formally require that an inter partes review (IPR) consist of an exhaustive review of all the claims contested by the petitioner.
Two judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a patent dispute between Oticon Medical and Cochlear, but the third judge, Pauline Newman took issue with the decision. Newman said the majority applied “an improper analytical technique” to determine that the preamble to a patent does not limit the related claims, despite that prior art cited to dispute the patent had been “disavowed by the preamble.”
Assignor estoppel doesn’t enjoy the glamour of subject matter eligibility in the U.S. patent system, but a case heard recently at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has resurrected this relatively arcane bit of patent doctrine. The outcome of the case of Hologic v. Minerva addressed the less-than-princely sum of roughly $5 million, but Judge Kara Stoll of the Federal Circuit said this issue calls for a deeper examination by a 12-judge panel.
In a decision that seems to have yet again roiled the patent subject matter eligibility question, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a district court had erred in determining the 7,941,207 patent held by Cardionet LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., is not eligible for patent protection.
The case of Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., has raised a host of questions about the appointment of judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and witnesses at a congressional hearing said a Supreme Court review might be two years in coming. Any such resolution might not clear out the thicket of underlying legal questions, however, and thus the witnesses urged Congress to take action quickly even as the Federal Circuit considers an en banc hearing of the matter.
RSS
