At the recent OCBA Seminar, partner Lauren Katzenellenbogen, “Panel on IP Valuation: How Much is it Worth? How Much Can You Get? How Can You Protect It?” View and download…

On September 7, 2018, Olaplex, LLC and LIQWD, INC. (collectively, “Olaplex”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Verbena Products, LLC d/b/a BEAUTYVICE and Robert Roque (collectively “Beautyvice”) based on Beautyvice’s sales of Olaplex hair care products.  Olaplex alleges that the products sold by Beautyvice do not bear certain codes that Olaplex includes on its products.

The medical device and related markets have shown some growth recently.  For example, IHI, an iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF, has a total return of about 24% year-to-date in 2018.   In the same time period, the S&P 500 has a return of about 8%.  The IHI fund has an average annual return in the last ten years of about 14% compared to about 10.7% for the S&P 500.  According to MarketWatch, the IHI fund invests in “medical-products companies that deliver the tubes, pumps and tools that are necessary to make medical facilities function. . . .  While some of the products offered by these companies are indeed high-tech, such as artificial heart valves, many are less glamorous, such as catheters and blood-pressure cuffs. But despite their flash, these items are staples, and medical offices and hospitals nationwide remain big revenue sources for these companies.”

Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Summary:  District Courts have jurisdiction to hear APA challenges to the PTO’s denial of a petition for rulemaking. An Examiner’s ability to reopen prosecution under a new ground does not deprive applicants of their right to maintain an appeal.

            On September 5, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a press release highlighting recent actions taken to ensure that pharmaceuticals meet high-quality standards[1]. Currently, there are over 5,000 pharmaceutical sites worldwide. Of these sites, over 3000 are based outside of the United States. This large number of ex-U.S. sites requires a regulatory scheme that ensures both Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) and transparency regarding drug manufacturing.

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: When the ranges identified in a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, the burden shifts to the patentee to come forward with evidence of nonobviousness.  This burden-shifting framework is applicable both in the context of district court cases and inter partes review proceedings.

Machine learning is one of the fastest growing categories of granted patents_[1].  However, there do not appear to be many examples of patent infringement lawsuits where machine learning claims have been analyzed by the courts under the patent-eligibility framework set forth in Alice_[2]. 

Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary:  While obviousness of apparatus claims “capable of” a particular function may be shown by identifying a prior art reference that discloses an apparatus capable of performing the claimed function, obviousness of related method claims requires a motivation to actually use the prior art apparatus for the claimed function.

On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s determination of no interference-in-fact between the University of California (UC)’s application and the claims of twelve patents and one application owned by the Broad Institute.

Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference.