Stryker Acquires Inari Medical for $4.9 Billion

Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) recently announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Inari Medical, Inc. (“Inari”) for approximately $4.9 billion. Inari develops technologies and products for treating pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, in-stent…

A Published Patent Application Is IPR Prior Art as of Its Filing Date

LYNK LABS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing…

A Patent Must Describe What Is Claimed, Not What Infringes

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. TORRENT PHARMA INC. Before Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patent was not invalid for lack…

No Patent-Like Claims Under State Law

BearBox, LLC, Austin Storms, v. Lancium LLC, Michael T. McNamara, Raymond E. Cline, Jr. Before Chen, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Delaware….

Edwards v. Meril at the Supreme Court: Testing the Scope of Hatch-Waxman’s Safe Harbor

On October 11, 2024, Edwards[1] filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.[2] The question presented, as framed by Edwards, is: “Whether, under Hatch-Waxman’s safe…

Unsupported Expert Testimony Cannot Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact

MIRROR WORLDS TECHS., LLC v. META PLATFORMS, INC. Before Prost, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: Expert testimony…

Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success

CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB V. JSR CORP. Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim limitation merely reciting an inherent property or…

“Quotation” Letter Found to Constitute Offer Invalidating Patents

CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC. Before Dyk, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Summary: An offer for…

An Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. §285 Does Not Preclude Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Authority

PS PRODUCTS INC. V. PANTHER TRADING CO. INC. Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. Summary: Section 285 does not prohibit an award of deterrence…

Deleted Definition “Highly Significant” for Claim Construction

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC V. PRICELINE.COM LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V. Before Chen, Mayer, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Delaware. Summary: Deleting a definition…

Older posts