Category: Enablement
By Kevin E. Noonan — On May 23rd, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California granted summary judgement to Defendant Sweegen, Inc. on its motion that Plaintiff Pure Circle USA Inc.’s claims in suit were invalid for reciting patent ineligible subject matter and for failing to satisfy the written […]
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 15th annual list of top patent stories. For 2021, we identified nine stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and […]
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continues its recent run of decisions extending the reach of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to invalidate patents in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (albeit in this case, affirming denial of motion for JMOL in the face of a jury […]
By Michael Borella — The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of the references. The inherent subjectivity of such an analysis can […]
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Baxalta Inc., Baxalta US Inc., and Nektar Therapeutics for infringing Bayer Healthcare’s patent to human blood clotting factor conjugates in Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. Bayer Healthcare sued Defendants on U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520, alleging willful infringement by Baxalta’s […]
By Kevin E. Noonan — A little less than four years ago, the Federal Circuit rendered a decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi that brought clarity to how the Court (and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) should apply the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to properly circumscribe the scope of claims to […]