Fighting Fungi: When Comparative Evidence Is A Must

Posted by Amy McMahon on Mar 22, 2017

Amy McMahon

It is well established that objective evidence of nonobviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, unexpected results, etc.) must be taken into account when evaluating the obviousness of a claimed invention. This standard applies during patent prosecution, in proceedings before the PTAB, and in litigation. However, as demonstrated by a recent IPR decision involving Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs (IPR2015-01776), it can be can be challenging to provide sufficient evidence of unexpected results and long-felt need.

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, Biotech

In Prior Art, Don’t Overlook What’s Inherently There

Posted by Katy Hwang on Mar 20, 2017

Katy Hwang

You can’t prepare for something that you can’t see. Newly recognized properties of previous discoveries or other inherent features not appreciated at the time of filing can sneak up on you after patent prosecution has ended, as was the case in the recent decision in Pharmacosmos A/S, v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPR2015-01490).

Read More

Topics: Biotech

Appeal from IPR? Don’t Count on It

Posted by Stuart Duncan Smith on Feb 6, 2017

Stuart Duncan Smith

The Federal Circuit recently confirmed that challengers using IPR outside the typical context of ongoing litigation face a trap for the unwary: those that are not careful to lay the proper groundwork may not be able to appeal an adverse decision by the Board.

Read More

A Double-Edged Sword: What the Immune System and Prior Art Have in Common

Posted by Alan Hebert on Feb 2, 2017

Alan Hebert

The immune system is said to be a double-edged sword: On one hand, it protects us from foreign invaders such as bacteria and viruses. On the other, it can recognize its host as the enemy, causing autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis. A similar double-edged sword principle holds true for prior art references. In a recent decision in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (IPR2015-01537), prior art cited by Momenta in a § 103 challenge to Bristol-Myers Squibb’s CTLA4Ig formulation patent turned out to be the very instrument that killed its case.

Read More

Topics: Biotech

Our Most-Read Blog Posts of 2016

Posted by Post-Grant Group on Jan 18, 2017

As 2016 fades into the rearview, we look back at our most-read blog posts of last year. The topics you were most interested in included a retrospective of the AIA’s first five years, guidance amidst the uncertainty preceding the Supreme Court’s Cuozzo decision (since squared away), and exploration of post-grant strategies for biotech patents. What would you like to see us write about in 2017? Let us know.

Read More

Post-Unwired Planet, Are Pending CBMs Safe?

Posted by Elisabeth Hunt on Dec 27, 2016

Elisabeth Hunt

The standard governing which patents can be attacked in covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings has received renewed attention recently. The Federal Circuit’s decision last month in Unwired Planet v. Google was a stern reminder to petitioners (and to the Patent Office) that not all patents that seem to be directed to “business methods” can be challenged in CBM proceedings.

Read More

Topics: CBMs

A Rose ‘Whereby’ Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet to a Petitioner

Posted by Ed Walsh on Nov 29, 2016

Ed Walsh

In Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. Pozen, Inc. (IPR2015-01718), the Board instituted a trial despite a failure of the petition to show that a final “wherein” clause of a method claim was met by the prior art. Rather, the Board reasoned that the “wherein” clause was likely to actually be a “whereby” clause, just by another name. Because a “whereby” clause stating the intended result of performing a method is not a limitation on the claim, failure to show that the result was known or even occurred in the prior art was not a basis to deny institution.

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, Biotech

CBM Review Standard Changes, ‘Complements’ of the Federal Circuit

Posted by Stuart Duncan Smith on Nov 23, 2016

Stuart Duncan Smith

Covered business method (CBM) review is a popular alternative to IPR, but is available only for patents related to financial activities. In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2015-1812 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the Board has been too generous in its definition of which patents can be subject to CBM review—allowing some only because they could be used in a way that relates to financial activities.

Read More

Topics: CBMs

To Be, or Not to Be? Shakespeare and CBMs

Posted by Ed Walsh on Oct 19, 2016

Ed Walsh

To be or not to be is an important question in classic literature as well as in defending patents that may be challenged with a Covered Business Method (CBM) review. One patent owner faced this question—not for itself, but for a dependent claim—when its patent was challenged in Plaid Technologies Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc. (CBM2016-00070, paper 8).

Read More

Topics: CBMs

Opting for PGR Over IPR: A Cautionary Tale

Posted by Jenny Chen on Oct 13, 2016

Jenny Chen

Post-grant review (PGR) is potentially more powerful than IPR, as it allows challenges to any requirement of patentability, while IPR is limited to claim validity in view of patents and printed publications. Accordingly, PGR, if available, may in some cases be a better option for petitioners. In one recent case, PGR might have been the better option—had the petitioner persuaded the PTAB that the patent at issue qualified for PGR.

Read More

Topics: Biotech

Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Blog

Here, the Post-Grant Proceedings Group
at Wolf Greenfield keeps you up to date
on the latest decisions and best practices, and what they mean for you. Learn more about the group and its members.

New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action

Subscribe to Email Updates

Follow Us

This blog is intended to promote thought and debate on developing areas of the law. The opinions, commentary and characterizations of cases provided on this blog are not legal advice and do not represent the opinions of Wolf Greenfield or its clients.