Since the Federal Circuit’s October 5, 2017 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi[1] overruling the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test for written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, patent challengers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields have gained powerful tools for attacking antibody claims for lack of adequate written description.  More broadly, patent challengers are

In Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner[1], the Federal Circuit notably held that it is “an elementary principle of patent law” that when a claim recites a numerical range, the claimed range is anticipated by a prior art reference that discloses a point or an example within that range.  Accordingly, when seeking to anticipate

On Monday, February 12, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) anticipation rejections and vacated and remanded the obviousness rejections against U.S. Patent Application No. 12/906,222 (“the ’222 application”), an application directed to a valve assembly for draining contaminants, condensation, and other fluids that adversely affect the efficiency and

On February 9, 2018, in vacating and remanding parts of an obviousness decision, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) erred in parts of its analysis of motivation, teaching away, and commercial success in cancelling all claims of Polaris’ U.S. Pat. No. 8,596,405 (“the ’405 patent”) in

In MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that issue preclusion applies to administrative agency decisions, including those from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in IPR proceedings.  In MaxLinear, Inc., the Federal Circuit was presented with the appeal of a PTAB decision upholding the patentability of the

Patent litigation often involves the intersection of practice before the PTAB and district courts.  Not surprisingly then, the subject of this post—the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion concerning the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 (“the ʼ471 patent”)—directly relates to a litigation analyzed on our firm’s companion blog,  See here and here.

In re