By Kevin E. Noonan –
In a decision that, in retrospect, is not surprising (in view of the haste with which the Court took up the case after granting certiorari; see “Solicitor General Proves Persuasive; Supreme Court Grants Hikma’s
By Michael Borella –
Eligibility wins at the Federal Circuit are scarce enough that any decision finding a claim to survive § 101 is worth a read. Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. is worth two reads, because the
By Kevin E. Noonan –
The measurement of the hydrogen ion concentration in an aqueous solution is represented (on a logarithmic scale) as the pH, wherein water under ambient conditions (a temperature of 25°C) has a neutral pH of 7
By Michael Borella –
Applicants who appeal a § 101 rejection to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) face long odds. Our annual surveys have put the affirmance rate for examiner eligibility rejections at roughly seven out of eight,
By Joshua Rich –
When we last encountered the Collison Communications v. Samsung case in the Eastern District of Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had submitted a “Statement of Interest” on
By Kevin E. Noonan –
The United States recently filed a Statement by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 517 regarding the “Interests of United States in pending suits” in Corteva
By Kevin E. Noonan –
On April 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma v. Amarin, with Charles Klein, representing Hikma, Michael Huston representing Amarin, and Malcolm Stewart addressing the Court on behalf of the Government.
First, some
By Kevin E. Noonan –
While the Supreme Court established a rather definitive standard (“reasonable certainty by a person having ordinary skill in the art”) for determining indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
By Kevin E. Noonan –
In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the
By Kevin E. Noonan –
In addition to the briefs from the parties, seventeen amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in Hikma v. Amarin: six in favor of Petitioner Hikma, seven in favor of Respondent Amarin, and the
