The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has renewed the hopes of applicants looking to patent method of treatment claims. A recent memo from the USPTO (the “Memo”) provides guidance on method of treatment claims, suggesting that when correctly drafted, such claims should generally be considered patent eligible subject matter.

The Memo comes

In an unprecedented move by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) has permitted the filing of amicus briefs on whether the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“Tribe”) should be permitted to terminate the inter partes review of Allergan’s patents contested in IPR2016-00127, IPR2016-01128, IPR2016-01129, IPR2016-01130, IPR2016-01131, and IPR2016-01132.

The Federal Circuit’s Review of Bayer’s Erectile Dysfunction Treatment Suggests Tolerance for a Wide Girth When Aiming for a Narrow Point

In Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. November 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit overturned the District of Delaware’s finding that Watson failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject matter encompassed by the claims of Bayer’s U.S. Patent 8,613,950 (the ‘950 patent) was obvious under 35 USC 103. The CAFC invalidated claims 9 and 11 of the ’950 patent as unpatentably obvious. The Federal Circuit made this determination de novo based on the underlying findings of fact from the district court.
Continue Reading

The America Invents Act (“AIA”) provides for post grant challenges of U.S. patents in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One type of AIA proceeding, Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), came into effect in September 2012, and provides a process for relatively quick determination of invalidity of challenged patent claims based on published prior art. [1] IPR decisions rendered in the past five years have created a body of law addressing a variety of issues related to invalidity challenges before the PTAB. In a recent IPR proceeding, a novel strategy has arisen that posts an interesting question of first impression, whether the assignment of a patent involved in an IPR proceeding to a U.S. Indian tribe can avoid an IPR proceeding based on a sovereign immunity defense. The present blog post summarizes the new issue that the PTAB will be required to decide in the IPR.
Continue Reading

Inequitable conduct arises when a material reference was intentionally withheld by the patent applicant in order to deceive or mislead the examiner into granting a patent. Both materiality and intent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[1] In Therasense, the en banc CAFC stated that proving specific intent to deceive the U.S.

shutterstock_99945896The value of an early stage biotech company is driven primarily by the quality and scope of its intellectual property. As such, these companies’ primary goal is to stake out and consolidate a defensible claim in their technology space.

In sizing up an early stage company’s IP portfolio during due diligence, many investors and acquirers

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently unveiled a new pilot program designed to assist patent applicants and practitioners during patent prosecution. The Post-Prosecution Pilot program, otherwise known as P3, arises under the Enforced Patent Quality Initiative and incorporates components from two existing programs, the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference and the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0).
Continue Reading

Last week, the USPTO issued further guidelines for patent examiners, instructing that rejections of applications based on ineligibility require detailed explanations for the basis of the rejection. This new requirement is distinguished from the previous guidelines by requiring examiners to provide more substantive information in their claim rejections. Along with the guidelines the USPTO issued several examples, which can be useful for examiners and applicants alike. The examples illustrate various claim scenarios, appropriate eligibility analysis, and potential applicant responses.
Continue Reading

In Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C., the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s determination that many claims of a patent relating to methods of analyzing sequences of DNA are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. According to the opinion, Dr. Simons, the named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179, discovered that amplifying and analyzing non-coding, or “junk” DNA could be used to detect genetic disorders.
Continue Reading