-
Read more: AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc.
A failure to provide sufficient information in a notice of appeal arising out of an IPR to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii) is not a jurisdictional issue that affects the authority of the Federal Circuit to review the appeal.
-
Read more: Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.
PTE for a reissued patent is calculated based on the issue date of the original patent when the reissued patent includes claims for the same drug product that was claimed in the original patent and that was subject to FDA review.
-
Read more: Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC
The time period to assess if a trademark is generic starts at the time of registration and does not depend on whether the trademark was generic prior to registration.
-
Read more: CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH
An obligation to indemnify a customer from patent infringement liability is sufficient to establish Article III standing for a supplier when the customer is accused of patent infringement by the patent owner.
-
Read more: IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.
Even when all of the embodiments in a written description depict a certain feature, this feature is only imported into the claims if expressly stated in the claim or explicitly defined in the specification.
-
Read more: ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Stewart
A claimed solution to a problem that is not known in the prior art is not automatically non-obvious.
-
Read more: Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Stewart
The USPTO has discretion to deny a request for Director review on PTAB decisions made before Arthrex when an Appointments Clause challenge was not timely presented upon appeal.
-
Read more: Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Whether a party is a real party in interest or privy under Section 315(e)(1) is a question of fact that should not be decided in the first instance on appeal.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!