Tag Archives: federal circuit

Trial & Error: Violation of MIL Order Not a Per Se Justification for New Trial

The Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al. reminds us that new trial motions are hard to win, even when the adversary violates a pretrial motion in limine (MIL) order. Rather, the district court judge’s curative instructions and procedures to avoid future violations of a … Continue Reading

“Consisting Essentially Of” Decision at Federal Circuit Supports Link between Specification and Claims in Composition Patents

The Appellants in HZNP Medicines v. Actavis Laboratories saw their hopes for rehearing dashed on February 25, 2020, when the Federal Circuit issued an order denying their petitions for panel rehearing and en banc rehearing. The decision leaves intact an order finding that claims reciting “consisting essentially of” could be found indefinite based on ambiguities … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Extends Potential Reach of Chemical Compound Structural Similarity Obviousness Law

In Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2018-2097 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2020), the Federal Circuit was asked “whether prior art ranges for solutions of structurally and functionally similar compounds that overlap with a claimed range can establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” Concluding that they can, the Federal Circuit reversed … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Takes a Mulligan and Reins in the Eastern District of Texas’s Assertion of Venue the Second Time Around

The Federal Circuit sent Google an early valentine on February 13, 2020, when it granted the petition for mandamus in In re Google, Case No. 19-126, directing that the Eastern District of Texas either dismiss Super Interconnect Technologies LLC’s (“SIT”) infringement action or transfer it under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).  The court’s precedential opinion held that … Continue Reading

When A Radio Is Just A Radio: Claim Construction Principles Revisited

Ordinary meaning can limit features in claims to the features’ purpose and principal use, according to the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc., No. 16-1026 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents-in-suit are directed to systems and methods for cooling the “central processing unit (CPU) or other processing unit of a … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Declines to Revisit its Decision that the Biosimilars Patent Dance is Optional – Next Stop, Supreme Court?

This past summer, a divided Federal Circuit panel found, in the case of Amgen v. Sandoz, that the so-called “patent dance” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) is optional.  This past Friday, the Federal Circuit declined to rehear that decision.  Its decision provides biosimilar developers with continued choice while opening … Continue Reading

The Single Party Rule for Direct Patent Infringement: Guidance from the Federal Circuit’s latest Akamai vs. Limelight decision

In its fourth decision in the ten-year litigation between Akamai and Limelight, the Federal Circuit again addresses the issue of so-called divided infringement, this time providing guidance on the requirement that only a “single party” can directly infringe. This case had its most momentous turning point last summer, in June 2014, when the Supreme Court … Continue Reading
LexBlog