We discussed the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a previous post, in which a Judge Burke of the District of Delaware found the patent for the hepatitis B drug entecavir (the active ingredient in Baraclude) obvious. Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed. There were two main issues on appeal, the selection of…
Last week, in Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a finding from the Middle District of North Carolina that patents covering Allergan’s Latisse® (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) were not invalid for obviousness. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reinforced the principle that the obviousness analysis, including secondary considerations of nonobviousness,…
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., handed down last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there can be no liability for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) if no one has directly infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). While that principle may seem self-evident, it was not so…
This morning, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s formulation of the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2. Under the now-abandoned iteration of the definiteness test, claims were deemed to have satisfied the statutory requirement so long as they were “amenable to construction” and “not insolubly…