Expenses Incurred by Government Attorneys during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 Appeal Can Be Recovered by the USPTO

NANTKWEST, INC. v. MATAL: June 23, 2017.  Before Prost, Dyk, and Stoll.   Takeaway: Expenses incurred by USPTO during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 appeal include a pro-rata share of the incurred attorneys’ fees. The American Rule denying attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party does not apply when applicable statute specifically and …

Enablement from a Provisional Application Must Be Supported by the Disclosure and Not Require Undue Experimentation by a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

STORER v. CLARK: June 21, 2017.  Before Prost, Newman, and Dyk.   Takeaway: In order for a non-provisional patent application to be enabled by the provisional patent application from which it takes priority, the disclosure in the provisional patent application must enable one having ordinary skill to produce the claimed …

The Board’s Decision Finding Waterproof Leather Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Affirmed by the CAFC, a Person of Ordinary Skill Need Not Have the Same Motivation as the Patent’s Inventor

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. GEOX S.P.A.: No. 2016-1769; June 16, 2017.  Before Dyk, Moore, and Rena. Takeaway: The motivation to combine inquiry is not limited to the problem faced by the inventor of a patent. Procedural Posture: Outdry appealed from the Board’s decision in an IPR finding that claims 1-15 of its …

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal upon Finding it is Precluded from Reviewing District Court’s Decision to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

PRESTON V. NAGEL: Jun. 1, 2017. Before Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes. Takeaways: The CAFC is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) from reviewing the district court’s decision to remand because the remand was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFC found that while hearing state-law and patent-law …

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 …