The Patent and Trial Appeal Board erred in dismissing Airbus S.A.S.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on a lack of substantial new question of patentability because the Director had already ordered inter partes reexamination, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation, July 17, 2015, Lourie,…
The Federal Circuit has issued its long-awaited decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., but the decision is not good news for those seeking to obtain or enforce U.S. patents on diagnostic methods. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101, applying the analytical framework set forth…
Proxyconn, Inc. was able to show that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in construing certain claims of a patent challenged by Microsoft Corporation in inter partes review petitions, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn, Inc., June 16, 2015, Prost, S.). A full summary of…
An accused party’s belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to a claim that the party induced infringement of the patent, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. In a dispute between Commil USA and accused infringer Cisco Systems, the Court reversed a holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its remand decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., and this time affirmed the district court decision that Limelight was not liable for infringement of Akamai’s patents because Limelight had not performed each step of the method claims and was not responsible for…
In light of a binding prior Federal Circuit decision narrowly construing a key claim term in a patent relating to type of mechanically-resistant steel sheet, the federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, properly invalidated the first 23 claims of a reissue patent as impermissibly broader than the original claims, but the court erred in invalidating…
The federal district court in Camden, New Jersey, did not err in finding U.S. Patent No. 7,524,834 (“the ‘834 patent”) held by AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca AB (“AstraZeneca”) and asserted against Breath Limited, Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., Sandoz Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, the “defendants”), invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the…
On February 5, 2015, the USPTO announced the launch of an Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative and solicited public comments on certain proposals aimed at improving patent quality, which are due by May 5, 2015. With a few weeks left in the comment period, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce issued…
Myles Jelf (Bristows LLP) talks about the difficulty with software patents. The difficulty arises from a need to identify the dividing line between the pure algorithm which should not be patentable and a technical invention which happens to use a computer. There are three different definitions between the UK, EPO and theUS. The EPC Article…
John Richards (Ladas & Parry LLP, New York) identifies the problem that filing a patent involves a prior art search which is probably not as focussed as searched that occur in litigation and therefore the patent might require later amendment. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) takes a very strict approach to amendment in…
