Patent Law Practice Center

Teva v. AstraZeneca – Does an Inventor Need to Understand How a Prior Invention Works in Order to Have that Prior Invention Defeat Another’s Patent?

Written by Gerald M. Murphy, Jr., Partner at Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, LLP 

On December 1, in Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, the Federal Circuit explained when a secret invention can be considered “made” (or conceived and reduced to practice) so that it can be used as prior art against a patent.  Briefly, the CAFC held that an invention can be considered “made” if the inventive entity “did not do so by accident and it knew what it had made.”  It is not necessary for the prior inventor to “know everything about how or why its invention worked.”

(more…)

Patentee’s Arguments in Reexamination Create Intervening Rights Erasing $29.4 Million Verdict

Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing Tuesday’s CAFC decision in the Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon case. In a decision that seems to encourage reexamination, the Court held that “intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination.  Daniels discusses the history of the case and highlights the key points of the CAFC decision.

The CAFC panel decision [Tuesday] in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon will do more to popularize reexamination than all the proselytizing by all the reexamination lawyers and bloggers ever could.  The Court held that an argument made by the patentee traversing a rejection in reexamination constituted a disclaimer of patented subject matter; this disclaimer triggered absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate.  The Court also suggested that the accused infringer might also be protected by equitable intervening rights for the period after issuance of the reexamination certificate and sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding. (more…)

AMP v. USPTO: The Latest Developments

Ryan Chirnomas, Partner in the Biotechnology group at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels and Adrian, sent in this article discussing the latest developments in the AMP v. USPTO case and what the Plaintiffs next move may be.

After the CAFC issued a decision in AMP v. USPTO on July 29, 2011, there was much speculation as to what would be the next move in this compelling case.  A petition for an en banc rehearing or a petition to the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari seemed likely, but instead each party petitioned for a rehearing by the same three-judge panel.  Last week, the CAFC denied both of these without providing any further comments.  However, these petitions provide some insights as to how the parties’ positions on standing as well as the merits are evolving, and are summarized below.

Plaintiffs’ Petition for Panel Rehearing

On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and PubPat, filed a petition for a panel rehearing on both substantive issues and issues of standing.  As to the substantive issues, the Plaintiffs took issue with the majority’s reasoning that isolated DNA does not occur in nature. (more…)

Classen v. Biogen: CAFC Tries To Target Patent Eligibility But Misses

Ryan Chirnomas, Partner in the Biotechnology group at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels and Adrian, sent in this article discussing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent Classen v. Biogen decision.  He highlights the key points of the decision and why he believes this case is a missed opportunity to clarify the machine-or-transformation test of Bilski.

Not long after issuing opinions in AMP v. USPTO and Prometheus v. Mayo, the CAFC has again taken on the difficult questions of patent eligible subject matter in Classen v. Biogen.  In 2008, the CAFC issued a three-sentence non-precedential opinion holding that Classen’s claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter.  This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently remanded to the CAFC after the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision.  The instant decision includes a discussion of patent-eligible subject matter, as well as the safe harbor exception to infringement of pharmaceutical patents.  This discussion is limited to questions of patent eligible subject matter.  This decision relates to three patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 6,638,739 (“the ‘739 patent”), 6,420,139 (“the ‘139 patent”) and 5,723,283 (“the ‘283 patent”). (more…)

Patent Community Weighs in On The Therasense Decision And It’s Implications

The Federal Circuit’s Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., decision has certainly instigated a huge amount of commentary and debate amongst the patent community.  Will the heightened standards resolve the problems associated with practitioners “disclosing too much prior art of marginal relevance” or actually reduce the number of inequitable conduct claims that are filed?  R. David Donoghue, Partner at  Holland & Knight and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article he wrote entitled Federal Circuit Heightens Inequitable Conduct Standards, But Does it Increase Unethical Behavior? where he weighs in on decision.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit handed down its anticipated en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., increasing the standards for inequitable conduct.  The 6-5 majority held that:

1. an omitted reference is material only if the claim or patent would not have issued, but for omission of the reference;
2. specific intent to deceive must be shown by clear and convincing evidence;
3. courts can no longer employ a “sliding scale” of intent and materiality, both must be showng by clear and convincing evidence; and
4. courts should apply equity to ensure that the remedy is not based upon conduct “immaterial to the issuance of the patent.”  (more…)