Federal Circuit Upholds Injunction and Comments Upon the Appropriate Test for Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents in Chemical Cases

MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD:  May 19, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore and Reyna.   Takeaway: CAFC ruled the district court did not err in granting preliminary injunction because the district court correctly determined defendant was unlikely to prove invalidity of one patent-in-suit, even though the district court did err …

The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Granted Summary Judgment Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s Execution of a Covenant not to Sue that Appeared to be Unconditional

ARCELORMITTAL V. AK STEEL CORP.:  May 16, 2017. Before Hughes (majority), Wallach (dissent), and Moore.   Takeaway: CAFC affirmed the district court’s ruling that it had the subject matter jurisdiction necessary to deny plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and grant summary judgment of invalidity. CAFC found that a facially unconditional covenant not …

Federal Circuit Reaffirms the Board’s Decision to Terminate a Reexamination As to Only Litigated Claims in a Civil Action

IN RE AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC: May 5, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, Stoll. Takeaway: The estoppel provision under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) does not extend to all parties and all claims, but rather only to an inter partes requester that was a party to the civil action (or its privies) …

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of On-Sale Bar and Holds that the Absence of Regulatory Approval Before the Critical Date does Not Prevent a Sale and the Completion of Phase III studies and Final FDA Approval are Not Pre-Requisites for the Invention to be Ready for Patenting

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A., v. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC.: May 1, 2017. Before Dyk, Mayer, O’Malley. Takeaway: An agreement contracting the claimed invention for sale contingent on regulatory approval is still a commercial sale, and thus the absence of FDA or other regulatory approval before the critical date does not prevent …