1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15

CPLRG™ 0020 - Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. - Jan. 25, 2010

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.  593 F.3d 1325, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Friedman & Dyk)

Therasense01252010

MAJOR ISSUES: Jury verdict of invalidity; “anticipation or obviousness”; erroneous “could-have-combined” instruction on anticipation; harmless error harmless; claims obvious based on prior art reference showing all claim examples in multiple examples; long-felt need for solution to a problem as evidence of unobviousness; claimed invention broadly covering devices that do–and do not–solve the problem Read CPLRG™ 0020

CPLRG™ 0019 - Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc - Jan. 25, 2010

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. 592 F.3d 1340, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1624 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN & Prost; DYK, dissenting-in-part)

Boehringer01252010

MAJOR ISSUES: Double patenting; retroactive terminal disclaimer after first patent expired; Section 121 safe harbor; examiner restriction requirement in grandparent application; divisional of divisional application Read CPLRG™ 0019

CPLRG™ 0018 - Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co. - Jan. 15, 2010

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 969 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN & Friedman; DYK, concurring in result & dissenting in part)

Schindler01152010

MAJOR ISSUES: Claim construction; prosecution disclaimer. Read CPLRG™ 0018

CPLRG™ 0023 - Wyeth v. Kappos - Jan. 7, 2010

Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 136 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Plager & Moore)

Wyeth01072010

MAJOR ISSUES: Patent term adjustment; term extension because of PTO failure to meet deadlines (“A delay”) and to issue patent within 3 years of filing (“B delay”); elimination of “overlap”; overlap commencing only after three-year mark; PTO’s erroneous interpretation as greater of A or B Read CPLRG™ 0023

CPLRG™ 0017 - Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co. - Jan. 5, 2010

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co. 590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GAJARSA, Michel & Friedman)

KoninklykePhilips01052010

MAJOR ISSUES: Interference between patent and application; interpretation of claim copied by an applicant from a patent; written description support; PTO Rule 41.200(b) contrary to judicial authority Read CPLRG™ 0017

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15

©2010 Donald S. Chisum - All Rights Reserved

Website design by Bluegrass Internet Services