Utility Patent Cases
Coverage since November 3, 1994

Utility Patent

Uncategorized

Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. — Importing Bacteria Made by Patented Process Infringes Under § 271(g) Even When Manufacture Occurred Abroad Under a Foreign License

The Federal Circuit affirmed infringement of a process patent covering genetically engineered bacteria for producing the amino acid threonine, holding that importing bacteria manufactured abroad using the patented method constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) even when the manufacturing w

Uncategorized

Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp. — Repeated Prosecution Statements Touting Superiority of Claimed Range Create Clear and Unmistakable Surrender of Broader Scope

The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in an ANDA patent case, holding that Bayer’s repeated prosecution statements characterizing its claimed nifedipine crystal surface area range as ‘special’ and producing ‘superior’ performance created a cl

Uncategorized

STX LLC v. Brine Inc. — Subjective Uncertainty About Whether a Product Meets Claimed Performance Criteria Does Not Prevent the On-Sale Bar from Applying

The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of a lacrosse stick patent under the on-sale bar of § 102(b), holding that subjective uncertainty about whether a commercially sold product possessed claimed performance characteristics cannot serve as an escape from the bar — if the product was ready for pate

Uncategorized

Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd. — Trade Show Brochure Raises Genuine Fact Issues on On-Sale Bar and Anticipation; “Ready for Patenting” Standard Applied

The Federal Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment, holding that genuine factual disputes existed over whether a trade show brochure triggered the on-sale bar or anticipated the patent, because neither party had presented evidence on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand t

Scroll to Top