patent law

Subscribe to patent law via RSS

The practice of serially filing continuation applications through a patent’s lifetime has come under increased pressure in recent years from newly implemented continuing application fees to expanded case law on non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. A somewhat new interpretations of the doctrine of prosecution laches emerging from Sonos, Inc. v. Google, LLC in late 2023, however, that threatened an outright repudiation of the practice late into a patent’s 20-year term. In a post-trial motion, District Court Judge William H. Alsup set aside a $32.5M jury verdict that Google infringed Sono’s 10,469,966 and 10,848,885 patents, finding the patents unenforceable due to a 13-year delay from the priority date to the filing of the continuation applications that resulted in the patents at issue. Recently a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel of Chief District Judge Bumb and Judges Lourie and Prost reversed the finding of laches as unsupported by the evidence nonprecedential decision, stopping short of repudiating the possibility of finding laches for continuation applications filed late into a patent’s 20-year term.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC  provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s specification can evidence that the patentee intended for a term in the patent claims to have a different meaning than what is typical. Now, the Federal Circuit has held that the prosecution history—the exchanges between the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the patent applicant during the application process—can do the same.

Stablecoins have emerged as one of the most transformative innovations in the cryptocurrency space, bridging the gap between the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and the stability demanded by mainstream financial systems. This rise has brought with it a wave of innovation, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the growing number of patent applications for stablecoin technologies.

Less than two months after CVC made the surprising move to revoke two of its seminal European CRISPR patents, Sigma-Aldrich has done it too. While the facts that led to Sigma’s “self” revocation may be different than CVC’s, this en vogue trend of avoiding final decisions is troubling because it denies the public of the certainty it deserves. 

There is no shortage of surprises and twists in the decade-long fight over the control of dominant IP in the CRISPR space.  The newest one is the self-revocation of two seminal CRISPR patents in Europe by the team led by two Nobel Laureates Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna (aka “CVC”).  …

Litigators in the life sciences field are no doubt familiar with the so-called “artificial” act of infringement established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)-(B): namely, that a party can be sued for patent infringement by merely filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic drug or a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for a biosimilar drug. The filing of such an action can allow for, among other things, the resolution of patent infringement disputes before the generic (or biosimilar) drug enters the market. 

Recently, in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit held for the first time that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has the authority to issue a Final Written Decision even after the statutory deadline has passed.

Congress introduced post grant review (“PGR”) and inter partes review (“IPR”) in 2011 as part of the America Invents Act (AIA). Parties can use these processes to ask the Board to review the patentability of a patent’s claims. Under the AIA, the Board must provide a Final Written Decision within one year of instituting the PGR or IPR; this can be extended for good cause for an additional six months.

In an unprecedented PTAB decision involving Spectrum Solutions LLC (“Spectrum”) (Petitioner) and Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics (“Longhorn”) (Patent Owner), the Board found all five challenged patents invalid and imposed sanction against patent owner Longhorn for failure to meet the duty of candor and fair dealing. The board determined that Longhorn selectively disclosed testing results to support its claim construction and misled its technical expert with incomplete laboratory data, thereby failed to meet its duty of candor and fair dealing in its actions before the Board. The claims and substitute claims in all five patents asserted by Longhorn were unpatentable due to its sanctionable misconduct. Longhorn was also ordered to provide Spectrum compensatory expenses including attorney fees. On one hand, it is a reminder that duty of candor is a continuing obligation that cannot be ignored even during the IPR proceeding.  On the other hand, it does raise the question whether the PTAB has the authority to invalidate a patent for misconduct.