Last week in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit delivered generic drug maker Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. with a notable victory when it affirmed the district court’s judgment that it does not infringe Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.’s patents covering the active ingredient in the pulmonary arterial hypertension drug Veletri®. In
In a recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit, the appellate court explained that words of approximation like “about” are not inherently definite or indefinite — but when a patentee fails to provide sufficient guidance as to the meaning of such terms, it can be fatal to the claims. More specifically, in Enviro Tech Chemical
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC is a good example of the courts’ ability to correct obvious errors in patent claims through claim construction. Indeed, the panel’s reversal of the lower court’s ruling demonstrates that judicial correction of evident errors in patent claims — even when the error
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent enforcement in the tech sector where technology typically evolves much faster than other industries. The case, which pitted two giants of the
In a significant decision for patent law and the fitness equipment industry, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a partial dismissal of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s patent infringement claims brought against iFit, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The infringement allegations against iFit were based on PowerBlock’s U.S. Patent No.
Last month the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) decision finding that the University of Minnesota’s patent claim directed to the anti-cancer drug sofosbuvir was not adequately supported by the written description in the applications to which it claimed priority. As a result, the appellate court held in Regents of the University