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 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 …

Lack of Meaningful Competition Between the Parties Weighed Against Conclusion of Irreparable Harm, Leading to Denial of Permanent Injunction

Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, INC., No. 2016-1585, 2016-1618 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2017) (precedential).  On appeal from E.D. Tex.  Before Reyna, Hughes and Stoll. Takeaway: Lack of meaningful competition between the parties weighs against conclusion of irreparable harm. Procedural Posture: Nichia, the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, …

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.