Patent Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

Int’l Seaway Trading v. Walgreens: The Ordinary Observer Test Is the Sole Test of Invalidity of a Design Patent

By Olivier A. Taillieu and Thomas F. Zuber of Zuber & Taillieu LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the holding of Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 435 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and held that the “point of novelty” test should no longer be applied to determine validity of a design patent. In Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v.… More...

More Patent Law Updates

Sort by:
Page 1 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 1 2 3 >

Forest Group v. Bon Tool: Upping the Incentives for False Marking Claims

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.  |  March 4, 2010

The Federal Circuit has determined that the maximum fine for violation of the federal false marking statute should be applied on a per article basis, rather than the “per decision” basis applied by a majority of district courts in the past. In The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d More...

Prometheus Labs v. Mayo: Preserving Patentability of Medical Diagnostics

Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.  |  February 19, 2010

The Federal Circuit has preserved patent-eligibility for medical diagnostics testing, finding that the administration of drugs and determination of resulting chemical levels can meet the machine-or-transformation test set forth in In re Bilski. In Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., More...

Exergen v. Wal-Mart: Raising the Pleading Requirement for Inequitable Conduct

Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  |  December 7, 2009

The Federal Circuit has established a heightened pleading requirement for claims of inequitable conduct, requiring more than “a mere showing that art or information having some degree of materiality was not disclosed.” In Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1331 (Fed. Cir. More...

Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude: Section 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Claims

Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc.  |  October 2, 2009

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. Section 217(f) is not applicable to method claims. In Cardiac Pacemakers, the Court expressly overruled its own previous controversial decision in Union Carbide, More...

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz: Defining Infringement for Product-by-Process Claims

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz  |  July 13, 2009

The Federal Circuit has resolved prior inconsistencies in its case law and established a bright line rule to define infringement in product-by-process claims, holding that such infringement requires practice of the claimed process by the alleged infringer. In Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 More...

In re Kubin: Extending “Obvious to Try” to cDNA Sequence Patents

In re Kubin  |  June 17, 2009

The Federal Circuit court applied the “obvious to try” test from KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. to biotechnology patent applications, and essentially eviscerated the obviousness standard once applied to biotech patents by the Federal Circuit in In re Deuel. While the decision in In re Kubin More...

In re Ferguson: Affirming Bilski’s Machine-or-Transformation Test

In re Ferguson  |  May 26, 2009

In one of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, the court confirmed the Bilski holding that business methods do not constitute patentable processes if they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Specifically, in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2009), the Court held More...

Tafas v. Doll: Limits on Continuations Invalid; Other Claim Limits May Be OK

Tafas v. Doll  |  May 18, 2009

The Federal Circuit largely upheld rules promulgated by the PTO to help relieve its enormous backlog of patent applications. The district court had determined that the rules were substantive and therefore beyond the PTO’s legal authority. In Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a split More...

Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct

Rothman v. Target Corp.  |  May 12, 2009

In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting More...

Boston Scientific v. Cordis: Obviousness from Two Separate Embodiments

Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corp.  |  April 2, 2009

In Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned both the PTO Examiner and the district court trial jury in invalidating Boston Scientific’s patent claims due to invalidity. Specifically, the appellate court determined that More...

Page 1 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 1 2 3 >
Advertise with LawUpdates.com

Companies Mentioned

Patent Law

The following companies are mentioned in Patent Law Updates:

Egyptian Goddess, Inc.

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

Dror Swisa

St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

Pacesetter, Inc.

Cordis Corp.

Exergen Corp.

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Hana Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

Target Corp.

CVS Corp.

Sears Holding Corp.

Daiwa Products, Inc.

Motherswear International, Redcats USA, L.P. d.b.a. Lane Bryant Catalog

S.A.A.T. Systems Application of Advanced Technology, Ltd.

Leading Lady, Macy’s Department, Inc.

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.

Mayo Collaborative Services d.b.a. Mayo Medical Laboratories

K-Mart Corp.

Mayo Clinic Rochester

J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

Shanghai Honest Tool Co., Inc.

Glamourmom LLC

Forest Group, Inc.

Federated Department Stores

McKesson Information Solutions, Inc.

Cibon Industrial

Elizabeth Lange LLC d.b.a. Liz Lange Maternity

Bridge Medical, Inc.

Bon Tool Company

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Walgreens Corp.

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Smithkline Beecham Corp. (d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline, plc.)

Touchsport Footwear USA, Inc.

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d.b.a GlaxoSmithKline

HT Window Fashion Corp.

International Seaway Trading Corp.

Glaxo Group Limited d.b.a. GlaxoSmithKline

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Ranbaxy, Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

Abbott Laboratories

Additional Resources

Patent Law