Erectile Dysfunction Drug-Patent Found Obvious

BAYER PHARMA AG, v. WATSON LABS, INC.: Nov. 1, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley   Takeaway: The CAFC will reverse a finding of non-obviousness where key references are missing from a district court’s opinion and mere concerns over effectiveness do not rise to the level of teaching away. Procedural Posture: Alleged …

The Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Does Not Apply to Requests for Attorney’s Fees Under § 285 of the Patent Act

AIA AMERICA v. AVID RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS:  August 10, 2017.  Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes.   Takeaway: The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act. The district court did not err by making factual findings not foreclosed by …

Causal Nexus Requirement for Showing Irreparable Harm in Multi-consumer, Multi-Feature Products Only Requires An infringing Feature to be “A Driver” of Demand

GENBAND v. METASWITCH: July 10, 2017. Before Lourie, Taranto, and Chen.   Takeaway: In multi-consumer, multi-feature products, the causal nexus requirement for showing irreparable harm can be satisfied by evidence showing that an infringing feature increases a product’s desirability, or evidence showing that the absence of the feature would make …

Even Groundbreaking Medical Discoveries May Not Be Patentable

THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, CLEVELAND HEARTLAB, INC., v. TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS LLC: No. 2016-1766; June 16, 2017.  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Takeaway: Patent claims directed to observing a law of nature are patent-ineligible subject matter even if based on a valuable discovery. Service providers cannot be liable for contributory infringement if …

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 …