Tag: patent law
-
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC: No Standing to Appeal IPR RPI Dispute
In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025), the Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal for lack of Article III standing. Although Dolby had prevailed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Unified Patents, it sought to appeal the…
-
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.: Express Definitions in Patent Specs Can Limit Claim Scope
In Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 23-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction that doomed Alnylam’s infringement case against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The decision reinforces the primacy of clear definitional language in a patent’s specification—even when it narrows claim scope beyond what a patentee may have intended.…
-
Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.: Inherent Anticipation Requires Full Scope of the Claim
In a decision clarifying the boundaries between claim construction and factual findings of inherency, the Federal Circuit in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 23-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), reversed the PTAB’s determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 were not anticipated by the prior art. The court concluded…
-
EcoFactor v. Google: En Banc Federal Circuit Tightens Daubert Review of Patent Damages Experts
In a closely watched en banc decision issued on May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert damages testimony that was not based on sufficient…
-
Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute: Federal Circuit Faults PTAB for Conflating Conception and Reduction to Practice Standards in CRISPR Interference
In a closely watched battle over the origins of one of the most transformative technologies in modern biology, the Federal Circuit has partially reversed a PTAB ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 22-1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025). The dispute centers on who first invented the use of…
-
Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries: Federal Circuit Reverses Preliminary Injunction for Lack of Irreparable Harm
In a follow-on decision reinforcing its earlier order, the Federal Circuit in Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., reversed a preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The district court had enjoined Sun from launching its FDA-approved drug Leqselvi, a deuterated version of ruxolitinib for treating alopecia…
-
Jazz Pharmaceuticals v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals: Clarifying the Limits of Injunctive Relief Under the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
In the recent Federal Circuit decision Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the court provided critical guidance on the limits of injunctive relief relating to FDA submissions and clinical trials under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Background and Procedural History Jazz Pharmaceuticals manufactures Xywav®, currently the only FDA-approved drug for treating idiopathic hypersomnia (IH). Avadel…
-
Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC: Public Availability of Prior Art Software Invalidates Patent Claims
In a recent decision, Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld a jury’s finding that several claims of IOENGINE’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,059,969 and 9,774,703 were invalid due to anticipation and obviousness by publicly available prior art. Specifically, the Court affirmed that a software application known as the “Firmware Upgrader,” part of M-Systems’…
-
Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries: Federal Circuit Reinforces Strict Article III Standing Requirements for Patent Challengers
In a recent decision, Incyte Corporation v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the stringent standards for establishing Article III standing in appeals from PTAB decisions. The court dismissed Incyte’s appeal from a PTAB post-grant review proceeding, holding that Incyte failed to demonstrate a sufficient injury in fact required for Article III standing.…
-
Fintiv v. PayPal: Payment Handler Terms Indefinite Under § 112(f)
In Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Western District of Texas’s ruling that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The decision underscores the court’s continued enforcement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 for software-related terms that fail to recite sufficient…