|
|
|
12.23.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Alleged Inventor Had Standing to Sue to Correct Inventorship If He Could Prove Reputational Injury
Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC
This case involves Dr. Shukh, who sued his former employer Seagate to correct the identity of the inventors under 35 U.S.C. § 256 by adding his name as an inventor on six patents and four pending applications. Dr. Shukh had signed standard employment contracts in which he agreed to assign all rights in his patents due to not being named an investor. Read More>>
|
Claims to a Substantially Pure Compound Were Obvious Where the 50-50 Mixture and the Pure Compound Were Known
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
In an ANDA case, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that claims 1-2 of the patent-in-suit were invalid as being obvious and that claims 5-9 were not infringed either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The patent claimed a substantially pure form leucovorin having 92% of the (6S) diastereoisomer. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Construction that Relied on Plain Meaning of Claim Terms in Isolation, Without Context, Was Incorrect
Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.
This case turned entirely on the construction of terms in asserted claim 21. The district court granted Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 21 and granted Atlas’ motion for summary judgment that claim 21 was neither anticipated nor obvious. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Holding that Patent Applicant Failed to Demonstrate Prior Invention
In re: Steed
The patent applicants sought to “swear behind” (37 CFR § 1.131) a certain prior art reference using affidavits and documents. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTAB Correctly Found that the Prior Art Reference Was Enabled When Considering Statements in the Specification of the Application-at-Issue
In re: Morsa
The PTAB held that a prior art reference was enabled and therefore it anticipated the claims at issue. On appeal, Morsa argued that the PTAB’s reliance on statements in the specification of the application regarding the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art constituted an undesignated new ground of rejection. Read More>>
|
Settlement Divested the Court of Jurisdiction to Hear Attorneys’ Appeal of Statements in Sanctions Order that Could Cause Reputational Harm
Tesco Corp. v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
The Federal Circuit held that a global settlement of all issues in a case, including mutual release which was joined by the attorneys, divested the court of jurisdiction of an appeal by the attorneys of judicial reprimands in connection with sanctions that were issued against their client. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Reversed Where the District Court’s Claim Construction Was Erroneous
Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.
In a companion case to Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., Atlas appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Medtronic. Atlas contended that the district court’s claim construction was erroneous and the court agreed. Read More>>
|
|
