Inequitable conduct defense fails after PTAB denies IPR institution based upon allegedly “but-for” material reference

Jaguar-v.-Bentley-EDVA-Apr-30-2020 Concurrent with the litigation it filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, Bentley Motors (“Bentley”) filed a petition for IPR with the PTAB based on certain prior art referred to by the Court as “the Porsche 959 prior art.”  The day before its reply brief was due in the litigation, PTAB denied institution of […]

BASF patent gets a second chance at the Federal Circuit

basf-corp-v-snf-holding-company, Appeal No. 2019-1243, Fed. Cir. April 8, 2020. BASF owns US patent 5,633,329 (the “‘329 patent”), directed to an process of preparing super absorbing polymers, which have a tendancy to stick to the walls of the reactor in which they are manufactured.  The ‘329 patent claims a method of making the polymers, using a […]

“No risk trial” is an offer for sale, and triggers the on-sale bar

And relying on the exemplary data provided with the offer as proof of reduction to practice, without disclosing the offer, is not a good idea.  GS Cleantech v Adkins Energy, No. 2016-2231 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020). The US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (“District Court”) found four of Appellants patents (US […]

A cautionary tale for use of “the present invention” – Techtronic Industries, LTD v. ITC

My first thought when reading this case was doesn’t anyone else have a garage door that will not close even when there is nothing in the way?  Or that goes on psychotic ‘opening and closing’ benders for no apparent reason?  I can’t be the only one – clearly improved garage door openers are needed in […]

Federal Circuit holds claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents barred by prosecution history estoppel

Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc., Decision IT Corp., v. LifeScan, Inc., LifeScan Scotland, LTD., Johnson and Johnson, Appeal 2019-1163, decided November 22, 2019. pharma-tech-solutions-v-lifescan Procedural Background Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. sued LifeScan, Inc. for infringement of US Patent Nos. 6,153,069 and 6,413,411, both directed to blood glucose monitoring systems. As originally presented, the claims of the […]

A unanimous SCOTUS holds that the “PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under §145”

Peter v. NantKwest

Things go from bad to worse for L’Oreal in their multifaceted litigation with Olaplex

In 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s refusal to grant Liqwd a preliminary injunction against L’Oreal Liqwd v L’Oreal Preliminary Injunction.  Many reported earlier this summer on L’Oreal’s expensive loss to Olaplex in the District Court of Delaware.  (See, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/l-oreal-owes-startup-91-million-for-stealing-its-trade-secrets).  L’Oreal has now been dealt another blow by the Federal […]

UK Court Holds “Consisting Essentially of” Language does not give Rise to “Objectionable Uncertainty”

Anan Kasei v Neo Chemicals Though the claims at issue in this UK infringement action recited properties that could be deemed to be the claimed oxide’s “essential characteristics,” it is interesting to compare this case with HZNP v. Horizon Pharma (see my recent post for further details), recently decided by the Federal Circuit. The UK […]

Nike’s battle against Skechers continues – the gloves (or shoes?) come off

Nike has sued Skechers for infringement of 12 of Nike’s design patents.  The complaint alleges that Skechers business strategy is to knock-off the successful designs of it’s competitors, while in previously battles, Skechers has asserted that it merely “takes inspriation” from competitive products, in a process referred to internally as “Skecherizing”.2019-PATENT-Nike-v-Skechers

Tug Toy Survives §101 Challenge on Motion to Dismiss

FYF-JB, LLC sued Pet Factory for allegedly infringing its tug-toy patent.  Pet Factory responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the asserted claims are not patent eligible, and further, noncompliant with 35 USC §112.  FYF-JB v Pet Factory In particular, FYF-JB’s tug-toy patent (US 9,681,643) describes that a need existed in the art for […]