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.  ...

CAFC Concludes that the District Court Correctly Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Properly Upheld the Jury’s Verdict of Noninfringement Where the Jury Did Not Err in Finding that Defendant’s Devices Did Not Infringe the Claims in Plaintiff’s Patent

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L, v. APPLE INC.: April 14, 2017.  Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Wallach. (precedential). Takeaway: CAFC affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s JMOL motion upholding the non-infringement verdict where substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the accused devices did not use a mobile station to select which …

Federal Circuit Affirms the PTAB’s Decision Finding the Patent Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Where the Patent Owner Did Not Demonstrate that the Board Violated the Administrative Procedure Act Requirements of Notice and an Opportunity to Respond

NOVARTIS AG, MITSUBISHI PHARMA CORP., v. TORRENT PHARM. LTD.:  April 12, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll. (precedential). Takeaways: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not violate the requirements of notice and an opportunity to respond found in the Administrative Procedure Act when it relied on a prior art …

Summary Judgment of Infringement is Vacated Because the Defendant’s ANDA Did Not Meet the “Efficient Mixing” of the Asserted Claims

THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. MYLAN: Apr. 6, 2017. Before Dyk, Wallach, Hughes Takeaways: In ANDA case, the CAFC interprets batching limitation to require specific efficient mixing conditions, and reverses the district court’s finding of infringement based on this claim construction. Procedural Posture: The N.D. Ill. Held on summary judgment that …

Board’s Finding of Obviousness Upheld Despite that Prior District Court Found the Claims Non-Obvious

NOVARTIS AG, LTS LOHMANN THERAPIESYSTEME AG, v. NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,: Apr. 4, 2017. Before Prost, Wallach, and Stoll Takeaways: Because of the different burdens, the PTAB may properly reach a different IPR conclusion than a prior district court based on the same evidence. Chemical claims are obvious where a skilled …

Reference is not Anticipatory Where the Reference’s Disclosure of a Genus Does Not Disclose with Sufficient Particularity the Species in the Claim

WASICA FINANCE v. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS: Apr. 4, 2017. Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Takeaways: Claim not anticipated because the reference’s broad disclosure of a genus didn’t disclose with sufficient particularity the species in the claim. Procedural Posture: At the PTAB, the Board found certain claims unpatentable as anticipated or …

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.