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 …

Shoulder Replacement Apparatus Not Anticipated by Prior Art Requiring Modification to Satisfy Claim Language

IN RE: CHUDIK: March 27, 2017. Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Takeaway: A prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate claims. Procedural Posture: In an appeal from the USPTO where the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Chudik’s claims as anticipated by two …

Federal Circuit Affirms Induced Infringement and No Validity of the Asserted Patent, the Inducement Being Determined in Accordance with an Interim En Banc Decision by the Court

    ELI LILLY AND CO. v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., No. 2015-2067 (Fed. Cir. January 12, 2017) (precedential).  On appeal from S.D. Ind. Before Prost, Newman, and Dyk. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff Eli Lily filed a Hatch-Waxman lawsuit against a group of generic pharmaceutical companies, including Teva, to prevent Defendants from …

Board’s Finding of No Use in Commerce for a Web-Based Mark is Vacated for Not Focusing on the Perception of the User

IN RE: JOBDIVA: Dec 12, 2016. Before Prost, Dyk, and Stoll.                                                   Takeaway: To determine use in commerce for a trademark used with a web-based offering, the …