Blog

In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva[1] the Federal Circuit has further clarified the patent eligibility of treatment methods which include natural elements.  The Opinion, which includes comparisons with other cases such as Vanda[2], CellzDirect[3] and Ariosa Diagnostics[4], leaves one crafting such claims on ground that is fairly firm.

There is a scene in the Big Lebowski where the Dude complains about the lousy day he just had as he tosses down some snacks at a bowling alley bar.  In answer, the Stranger (played by Sam Elliot) offers the above advice as to the Dude’s existential situation.  It didn’t help.  One can almost imagine a similar response from Apple following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 2018-1599 (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2019), since it marked the second time in two years they had won at the Board, only to be disappointed at the Federal Circuit on the same patent, PWT’s 7,802,310 (‘310 Patent)[1].  While the Federal Circuit’s analysis in both cases was nominally different, the underlying theme in both was the need for a proper motivation-to-combine analysis.

Lead compound analysis (LCA) has been used in the evaluation of chemical compound Obviousness for the past 20 years.[1]  This approach supplemented the historic formulation of In re Dillon.[2]  While the Dillon analysis pivots about the structural similarity of the cited compound to that claimed and any motivation to make the claimed compound, LCA involves selection of a lead compound that is the most promising candidate for modification to improve its activity.  As such, it represents a somewhat more difficult standard than in Dillon.

The DuPont Factors are a set of 13 factors used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks.

In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GMBH, 2017-2596 (Fed. Cir. January 11, 2019), the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s IPR finding that claims 1-5 and 21-24 of UCB’s U.S. Patent 6,868,650 were not obvious.[1]  The patent claims cover Toviaz® (Fesoterodine), an antimuscarinic drug to treat urinary incontinence.[2]  Judge Lourie included a remark […]

Arista Networks, Inc. (Arista) petitioned for an IPR of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) patent, U.S. 7,340,597, relating to protecting computer network systems from outside attack using a logging module.[1] Claims 1 and 29 are as follows: 1.An apparatus comprising: a communications device comprising: a subsystem; and a logging module, coupled to […]

Stone Basket Innovations (SBI) sued Cook Medical LLC (Cook) for infringement of its patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,551,327 (‘327 Patent) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.[1]  Subsequently, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Southern District).[2]  The […]

This is the first article in a review of patents issued in 2017 in the area of Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC).  The summary below covers six patents related to fluid cracking catalyst compositions/synthesis. One technique for categorizing patents related to Fluid Catalytic Cracking is to group them in certain categories:  […]

In Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 2017-1267 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit overruled the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for improperly interpreting claims regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6.  The case related to an appeal from an action where Zeroclick had […]

I recently purchased some bathroom lighting from a Big Box store, confident in my ability to perform the necessary carpentry and electrical work to install it myself.  I had to wait 10 or 15 minutes while an associate that I estimated at about 19, unenthusiastically pulled a huge ladder up […]