#patent-law

#patent-law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., reversing a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and finding claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 invalid for lacking an adequate written description. The ruling overturns a $39 million jury verdict finding that Sandoz Inc. infringed the patent owned by Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC, which covers the eyelash growth drug, LATISSE.

For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law-a course at the crossroads of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the legislative process. Each semester, my students and I return to a central inquiry: when, if ever, should courts defer to agency interpretations, and when must judges exercise their own independent judgment? That question has taken on new urgency in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent restructuring of administrative law.

"The court's interpretation of Rule 3.1(c) as including an unwritten 'how' requirement was arbitrary and improperly reads in a requirement that has no support in the plain language of the rule."

"Prohibiting the enforcement of validly issued U.S. patents destabilizes the entire innovation ecosystem." - C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen.

"If Xerox wanted its more limited construction, it should have written the claims as it did in the substitute claim," said the CAFC.

The Plant Patent Act of 1930 allows for the patenting of newly discovered and asexually reproduced plants, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and seedlings. It, however, excludes tuber propagated plants and those found in their natural state.

Wen Xie emphasizes the inevitability of AI's presence in every profession and technology, asserting that resistance is futile in patent drafting and prosecution.

The upcoming Supreme Court petition in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. presents a critical examination of the meaning of "prior art" in patent law.

"If it is repugnant for legislation to apply retroactively to destroy settled expectations, it must similarly be repugnant for a concocted common law doctrine to be applied retroactively to destroy settled expectations."

Driscoll's holds significant power in the berry market, not by growing berries directly but through licensing new varieties and enforcing strict patent rights.

"Until the panel decision, this Court had never suggested that Alice step one requires a patent to claim both (1) a new application of an established process and (2) an improvement to the technology used in that process."

In Contour IP Holding, a patented video streaming technology was initially struck down in the district courts as ineligible, only to be revived by the Federal Circuit in a rare 101 reversal.