Search
Favorite Blogs
Every Patent Practitioner’s Nightmare – Prosecution Mistakes That Can’t Be Fixed
Steve Adrian | 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 > SteveAdrian
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
Shuji Yoshizaki | 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 > ShujiYoshizaki > Therasense
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
Lee Wright | 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.
Tags: biotech > LeeWright > obviousness > Peterson > ranges
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
Lee Wright | 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 > LeeWright > patent term > Patent Term Extension > PTE