Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 01 – January

  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    For non-obviousness type double patenting, the fact that one patent has a broad claim that encompasses a narrower claim in a second patent does not automatically constitute double patenting.

  • Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

    The PTAB has jurisdiction over an IPR that is brought against an already expired patent.

  • Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp.

    The “substantially the same way” comparison to find equivalence to a means plus function limitation should focus on the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and not on the unclaimed, individual components of that structure.

  • Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

    A published patent application is prior art in an IPR proceeding as of the application’s filing date.  Therefore, a reference may be prior art for the purposes of an IPR even if it was published after the priority date of the patent being reviewed.

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    The determination of whether federal patent law preempts a state law cause of action is based on the state law claim as pled, not on a comparison of the required elements of the state law claim to the objectives embodied by federal patent law.

  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.

    Written description and enablement analysis should focus on what is claimed in the patent. For enablement, later-existing state of the art cannot be used to invalidate a patent that was enabled for what was claimed at the time of filing.

  • CeramTec GMBH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC

    The doctrine of unclean hands may be used as an affirmative defense in a trademark functionality proceeding.  However, the TTAB may exercise its discretion to refuse this defense in view of the public policy interest of cancelling ineligible trademarks.

  • Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A.

    A proposed modification or combination of prior art references does not have to be the most desired or the most favorable to provide the proper motivation to modify or combine the references to show obviousness.