April 30, 2014

Federal Circuit Decisions for Week Ending April 25, 2014

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. USA, No. 2012-1489 (April 21, 2014) (precedential 3-0) Patent No. 5,721,244

Key point:

  • Benefits of an invention discovered post-filing can be used to negate obviousness.

Braintree Laboratories. Inc. v. Novel Laboratories, Inc., No. 2013-1438 (April 22, 2014) (precedential 2-1) Patent No. 6,946,149

Key point:

  • The word “a” in a claim may not mean “one or more” depending on other limitations in the claim.

Gilead Sciences, Inc.. v. Natco Pharma Limited, No. 2013-1418 (April 22, 2014) (precedential 2-1); Patent Nos. 5,763,483 & 5,952,375

Key points:

  • An earlier-expiring patent can qualify as an obviousness-type double patenting reference for a later-expiring patent.
  • Issue dates are irrelevant in obviousness-type double patenting rejections.

Michael Vaillancourt v. Becton Dickinson & Company, No. 2013-1408 (April 24, 2014) (precedential 3-0) Patent No. 6,699,221

Key point:

  • Only the patent owner has a cause of action (right to sue) in an appeal from a reexamination proceeding.
  • In re Anders Wallen, No. 2013-1622 (April 23, 2014) (non-precedential 3-0) Application No. 10/991,878

    Key point:

    • In determinations of patentability, the PTAB must identify concrete evidence in the record and cannot reach conclusions based on its own understanding or experience, or on its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense.

    Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. Nos. 2012-1548, -1549 (April 25, 2014) (precedential 2-1) Patent Nos. 7,479,949; 6,343,263; 5,946,647 (Apple) and 6,359,898; 6,175,559; 5,319,712 (Motorola)

    Key point::

    • An injunction is not a proper remedy for infringement of a patent subject to FRAND obligations if the infringement has not caused the patent owner irreparable harm and the infringer is not refusing to agree to a license.

    Related Team: