Federal Case Summaries
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided):
Coverage since November 3, 1994
✉️ New decisions, briefed in your inbox every morning — subscribe to Daily Case Law, free →

Federal

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Falkner v. Inglis — No Per Se Rule Requiring Structural Recitation in Biotech Written Description; Known Sequences Need Not Be Repeated

The Federal Circuit held in a poxvirus vaccine interference that there is no per se rule requiring a patent applicant to recite known structural information in the written description — an applicant may rely on publicly available scientific literature for what is well-known in the field.

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

In re EchoStar Communications Corp. — Asserting Advice-of-Counsel Defense Waives Privilege for All Related Communications, But Not All Work Product

The Federal Circuit held that when a patent defendant asserts an advice-of-counsel defense to willful infringement, it waives attorney-client privilege for all communications about the patent’s validity, enforceability, and infringement — but the waiver does not automatically extend to all att

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. — Narrower Claimed Range Is Not Anticipated by Broader Prior Art Range Without Specific Disclosure of the Narrower Range

The Federal Circuit reversed a finding of anticipation, holding that a prior art reference disclosing a broad temperature range of 100–500°C did not anticipate a claimed narrower range of 330–450°C — a genus does not anticipate every species, and a broader prior art range anticipates a narrower clai

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. — Product-by-Process Patent Claims Are Anticipated If the Product Itself Was Previously Known, Regardless of Process

The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of SmithKline’s Paxil patent, holding that product-by-process claims are anticipated by prior art that discloses the same product, even when the prior art used a different process to make it — because patents protect products, not processes, under such c

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Ferring B.V. v. Barr Laboratories — Concealed Declarant Affiliations Constitute Inequitable Conduct When Examiner Has Specifically Requested Independent Evidence

The Federal Circuit affirmed patent unenforceability for inequitable conduct, holding that pharmaceutical patent applicants who submitted declarations from scientists with undisclosed financial ties to the patent owner engaged in deceptive conduct that was material because the patent examiner had sp

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Digital Control Inc. v. Charles Machine Works — Multiple Materiality Standards Coexist for Inequitable Conduct; False Rule 131 Declarations Are Inherently Material

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in a horizontal directional drilling patent case, holding that the 1992 PTO Rule 56 materiality standard supplements rather than replaces the earlier ‘reasonable examiner’ standard, that false statements in a Rule 131 declaration are inherently ma

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. — Written Description Requirement Invalidates Claims Broader Than Disclosed Embodiment

The Federal Circuit held that patent claims covering all methods of achieving a technical result are invalid for insufficient written description when the specification discloses only one specific method, warning inventors that the scope of claims must be commensurate with what was actually disclose

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

In re Fisher — Expressed Sequence Tags Lack Patentable Utility Without Identification of the Functions of the Underlying Genes

The Federal Circuit affirmed rejection of patent claims covering expressed sequence tags (ESTs) — partial gene sequences — for lack of utility under § 101, holding that ESTs that serve only as research tools without identification of the functions of their corresponding genes do not have the specifi

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. — Federal Circuit Upholds BlackBerry Patent Infringement and Clarifies Extraterritoriality

The Federal Circuit affirmed that Research In Motion’s BlackBerry system infringed NTP’s wireless email patents, holding that infringement can occur even when some system components are located in Canada, and distinguishing system claims from method claims for extraterritorial purposes.

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Seachange International v. C-COR Inc. — Prosecution Disclaimer Applies to All Claims Grouped Together in Prosecution, Even If Argument Was Made Only for One Claim

The Federal Circuit reversed an infringement judgment in a video-on-demand patent case, holding that the applicant’s prosecution argument distinguishing the prior art based on ‘point-to-point’ network interconnections created a prosecution disclaimer that limited all claims grouped

U.S. Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I — FDA Safe Harbor Covers All Pre-Clinical Research Reasonably Related to Drug Approval

The Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)’s safe harbor exempts from patent infringement all uses of patented compounds that are reasonably related to generating information for an FDA submission, including preclinical studies that do not themselves produce data submitted to the FDA.

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Playtex Products v. Procter & Gamble — “Substantially” Flattened Surfaces Is a Term of Approximation, Not an Absolute Requirement of Flatness

The Federal Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that the term “substantially flattened surfaces” in a tampon applicator patent means surfaces materially flatter than the cylindrical barrel — not surfaces that are flat within a manufacturing tolerance

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA — Fosamax Once-Weekly Patent Obvious in Light of Prior Art Disclosing Same Dosing Concept; ‘About’ Carries Ordinary Meaning of ‘Approximately’

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court and invalidated Merck’s Fosamax once-weekly dosing patent as obvious, holding that prior art newsletter articles clearly disclosed once-weekly alendronate dosing, that the claim term ‘about’ retains its ordinary meaning of ‘appr

Scroll to Top