Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: References were sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute printed publication prior art even if they were not searchable or indexed because the materials were located on a publicly available website, specific instructions on how to access the materials were provided, the materials were available for at least two months before the critical date of the patents at issue, and there was no reasonable expectation that the materials would remain confidential.
Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was described in the specification.
Before Moore, Linn, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A prior art reference does not inherently disclose the elements of a claim limitation if the prior art describes the performance of the elements but does not include a complete description of the elements.
Before Chen, Newman and Dyk. Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: The Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA), which awards attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, does not permit the recovery of attorney’s fees for trade secret claims brought under a different state’s trade secret law, even if a favorable decision is issued by a district court in Texas.
On June 25th, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug, Epidiolex, for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare forms of epilepsy, Dravet syndrome, and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. The active ingredient in Epidiolex, cannabidiol (CBD), is a chemical compound found in marijuana, but is not associated with the euphoria caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Epidiolex is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Summary: (1) The public use bar is not triggered by experimental use testing the claimed features to determine if the invention works for its intended purpose, and (2) a district court must fully explain its decision to enhance damages following a willful infringement finding.
Senseonics recently received Premarket Approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Eversense® Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System. According to Senseonics, the Eversense® CGM System is the first and only implantable device to allow for continuous blood-glucose monitoring for as long as three months.
On July 2, 2018, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that some of the claims relating to artificial glands…
Medtronic recently announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved its Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Clinician Programmer and Activa Programming Application. Medtronic’s DBS Clinician Programmer is presently being launched in Europe and…
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: In order to rely on the entire market value rule to calculate damages, a patentee must prove that the unpatented features in the accused product did not influence consumer demand.
