Odds and Ends
| April 27, 2012
A few brief points that have slipped through the cracks over the past few weeks:
- After the Mayo v. Prometheus Supreme Court decision, the USPTO issued a memo offering preliminary guidance to Examiners on how to incorporate the Supreme Court’s decision into their examination process. Click here to read it. The memo does not provide much guidance to the Examining Corps, other than some vague points to keep in mind in addition to previously issued guidance in view of the Bilski decision. On a related point, for our discussion of the Mayo case, click here for English and click here for Japanese.
- The Supreme Court remanded AMP v. USPTO back to the CAFC for reconsideration in view of their Mayo decision. See page 2 of the order.
- Our Stephen Parker provides further comments on the CAFC’s recent Bard decision at Medical Devices Summit (free registration required). Read his original article on that case here.
- Our friends at Think IP Strategy have assembled an e-book: 2011 Think Tank IP Almanac. Click here for more information.
Every Patent Practitioner’s Nightmare – Prosecution Mistakes That Can’t Be Fixed
| April 25, 2012
Landmark Screens, LLC, v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, and Thomas D. Kohler
April 23, 2012
Panel: Bryson, Clevenger and O’Malley. Opinion by Clevenger. Concurring opinion by O’Malley.
Summary:
Patent prosecution can be forgiving when a mistake is made. However, given the right set of circumstances, a simple mistake can turn into a nightmare for both the client and attorney. This decision illustrates that a given set of circumstances can lead to a mistake which cannot be fully corrected, which leads to charges of malpractice and fraud against the prosecuting attorney as well as loss of a client. This decision also illustrates that full claim scope can be lost as a result of the mistake.
Tags: continuation > divisional > fraud > malpractice > mistake > restriction requirement
Revisiting Therasense, CAFC finds that an inventor’s subjective belief that submission of documents was unnecessary may not be sufficient to avoid a showing of intent to deceive
| April 18, 2012
Therasense判決に基づくCAFC判決；書類のIDS提出は必要ではないとする発明者の主観だけでは欺瞞の意図の立証を避けるのには十分ではないかもしれない。
Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Hospira Inc. and Apotex Inc.
April 9, 2012
Panel: Linn, Dyk, and Prost; Opinion by Prost
Summary:
The court found that the patents were invalid over withheld references, and unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
If the patentee did not narrow the ordinary meaning of a claim term by either acting as its own lexicographer or disclaiming claim scope either in the specification or during prosecution, that claim term cannot be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary meaning.
If the claims at issue are found invalid over a withheld reference under the clear and convincing evidence standard, then the withheld reference is found but-for material under the preponderance of evidence in Therasense; in this case, the materiality requirement was met since the patents were invalid based on the withheld references.
The witness’ explanation that that he believed he did not need to disclose the references to the PTO may not be sufficient to show that there was no specific intent to deceive the PTO because that finding was not the single most reasonable inference that could be drawn, unless the testimony is credible and the evidence presented is supported. The reference disclosing the information that shaped the inventive thinking should be cited, and there is no justification for telling the PTO about the prior art disclosing the problem an inventor examined while concealing key prior art disclosing the solution he chose.
Tags: claim construction > inequitable conduct > intent to deceive > materiality
Another per se rule bites the dust. A reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
| April 12, 2012
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
August 23, 2011
Panel: Lourie, Plager and Dyk. Opinion by Lourie. Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in part by Dyk.
Summary:
This article concludes a three-part series regarding this important case from last year. For part 1, click here. For part 2, click here. This final article discusses the following questions:
Question 1: Does a broad range necessarily render obvious a narrower range falling within that broader range?
Answer 1: No.
Question 2: Do all minor chemical differences always lead to a conclusion of obviousness?
Answer 2: No.
CAFC holds all the claims of a patent have the same expiration date, whether the claims are drawn to the product subject to patent term extension or not
| April 11, 2012
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
August 23, 2011
Panel: Lourie, Plager and Dyk. Opinion by Judge Lourie. Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in part by Dyk.
Summary:
Today, we bring you the second in a series of three articles regarding an important case from last year. For part 1, click here. This article discusses the following question:
Question: Where a patent has been granted an extension of term due to regulatory review, is there a different expiration date for the claims that were the subject to the regulatory review and the claims that do not claim the approved product?
Answer: The expiration date is not determined on a claim by claim basis.
A patent, and therefore all of the claims in the patent, have the same expiration date, which is the expiration date as extended by patent term extension.
Tags: Delay due to regulatory review > Expiration > FDA > patent term > Patent Term Extension > PTE
Computer-implemented “control means” requires description of step-by-step algorithm even if not key feature of claimed invention
| April 4, 2012
Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc.
March 26, 2012
Panel: Newman, Linn and Moore. Opinion by Moore. Dissent by Newman.
Summary
Another reminder that under US patent law, a “means-plus-function” element recited in a patent claim covers only the corresponding structures described in the specification and their equivalents. If insufficient or no corresponding structures are described in the specification, the claim is invalid as indefinite. The rule is strictly applied even if the functional element is only a peripheral aspect of the invention. Here, the patent claims were directed to a multichannel drug infusion system. A “control means” was recited (for controlling the motor that adjusts the drug dosage). The Federal Circuit affirms the invalidity of the claims. The specification disclosed a “control device,” but no “step-by-step process.” Since the recited function could not be performed by a general computer without special programming, disclosure of an algorithm was required to avoid “pure functional claiming.”
Tags: algorithm > computer > indefiniteness > means-plus-function
Announcing WHDA’s free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
| April 3, 2012
We interrupt our normal posting to make an exciting announcement! WHDA has just released “WHDA Connect”—a free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. With it you can:
*Read our blogs about the latest patent and trademark news, with optional push notifications. Non-native English speakers will find the built-in dictionary helpful – activated when you tap-and-hold a word (requires iOS 5.0+).
*Get simple access to the most powerful IP resources on the web, such as databases of major world patent offices.
*Learn more about our services and skill sets.
*Access our directory of professionals.
*Call or email our professionals with just a tap.
*Simplify visits to our offices with GPS-guided directions.
Unexpected results, not disclosed in the specification, of a compound may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness
| April 2, 2012
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
August 23, 2011
Panel: Lourie, Plager and Dyk. Opinion by Lourie. Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in part by Dyk.
Summary:
Today, we bring you the first in a series of three articles regarding an important case from last year. This article discusses the following question:
Question: Can evidence of unexpected results of a compound be used to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, where the unexpected result is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed?
Answer: Yes.
Evidence of unexpected results to a property of a compound, where the unexpected result is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed, can be used to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.
Tags: comparative results > interference > obviousness > secondary considerations > unexpected data
