About
CAFC Blog (www.cafcblog.com), an Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP resource, keeps practitioners up-to-date on the most recent IP decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. About Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP For more than...
Authors
The contributors to this blog are Andrews Kurth Kenyon Intellectual Property attorneys from throughout the country. Their backgrounds and areas of concentration allow them to provide comprehensive analyses of recent Federal Circuit Court opinions.  ...

Federal Circuit Orders Google Patent Case Transferred from E.D. Tex.

IN RE GOOGLE: Feb. 21, 2017. Before Prost, Lourie, and Linn (dissenting). Takeaway: On a motion to transfer, the existence of related, co-pending litigations does not automatically outweigh all other factors and considerations in the transfer analysis. Procedural Posture: Google petitioned the CAFC for a writ of mandamus following denial …

Web Page Authentication Patent is Outside the Scope of CBM Review

SECURE AXCESS v. PNC BANK: Feb. 21, 2017. Before Lourie (dissenting), Plager, and Taranto. Takeaway: To qualify for CBM review, a patent must claim “the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” Claims that are only “incidental to a financial activity” do not qualify. Procedural Posture: Secure …

The Federal Circuit Finds Drug Does Not Satisfy Markush Group Requirements; Reverses District Court Finding of Infringement

SHIRE DEV., LLC v. WATSON PHARM., INC.: Feb. 10, 2017.  Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Takeaways: An ANDA product that does not satisfy the Markush group requirements of the claim does not infringe. The phrases “consisting of” and “consists of” in a Markush claim will create a “very strong presumption” …

The Federal Circuit Finds Standing to Appeal Reexamination Decisions Even Though the Reexamination Requestor Had Not Been Sued For Infringement At the Time the Reexaminations Were Filed and Decided, but Nonetheless Dismissed the Appeal as Moot Due to Patentee’s Covenant Not to Sue

PPG INDUS., INC. v. VALSPAR SOURCING, INC.: Feb. 9, 2017. Before Newman, Chen, and Stoll. Takeaways: A reexamination requestor has standing to appeal the PTAB’s reexamination decisions even though the requestor had not been sued for infringement at the time the reexaminations were initiated and decided, if the reexamination requestor …

Patent Claiming Antidote for Acetaminophen Overdoses Not Invalid as Either Derived From Another or Obvious Over the Prior Art

CUMBERLAND PHARMS. INC. v. MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC:  Jan. 26, 2017.   Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Takeaway: To prove that a claimed invention was derived from another, a defendant must show that the specific invention was previously conceived by someone else and then communicated to the named inventor. There is no …

Disclaimer

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is responsible for the content of this blog and monitors comments. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth logo, Straight Talk is Good Business and Intelligent Energy are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon and the Andrews Kurth Kenyon logo are service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews Kurth Kenyon (UK) LLP is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA Registration No.598542). Andrews Kurth (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising. Neither the content on this website and/or blog nor any transmissions between you and Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP through this website and/or blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. In communicating with us through this website and/or blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter that you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. By commenting on this website and/or blog (and thereby choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval), you understand and agree that Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.