Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi to Decide Enablement Question

By: Trent Hoffman and David Barker On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi, No. 21-757, to review “hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments without undue experimentation.” Amgen sued Sanofi in 2014, alleging that Sanofi had infringed its cholesterol-lowering drug patents. Sanofi argued that the patents were invalid because, among other things, they failed   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Holds Patent Venue Decision Based on Remote Workers Did Not Warrant Mandamus Relief

By Daniel M. Staren and David G. Barker The Federal Circuit recently denied a mandamus petition seeking relief from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a patent case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Bel Power Solutions, Inc. sued Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. in the Western District of Texas for selling power modules that infringed Bel’s patents.  Monolithic moved to dismiss or transfer for lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) because (1) it is a Delaware corporation and does not reside in the Western District within the meaning of §   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Process Automation” Patent Infringement Suit

By Zach Schroeder and David G. Barker On March 15, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because the asserted patent claims were directed to process automation and therefore not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Repifi Vendor Logistics sued Intellicentrics for infringing its ‘268 patent “directed to a method of credentialing visitors to an access-controlled environment by an access administrator.”  The typical process of credentialing visitors involves a live receptionist collecting information, verifying information, and creating disposable visitor passes.  Repifi’s patent included claims for automating this process   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Rejects Two-Tiered Royalty Patent Damages

By Daniel M. Staren and David G. Barker Last week, a Federal Circuit panel vacated a billion dollar jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) and remanded for a new trial on damages because of Caltech’s unsupported two-tiered reasonable royalty patent damages theory. Caltech sued Broadcom, Apple, and others in the Central District of California for patent infringement. Two of the asserted patents disclosed circuits that were designed to improve the speed and reliability of data transmissions (“Circuit Patents”). Caltech alleged infringement by Broadcom’s WiFi chips and Apple’s products incorporating them. The accused chips were developed   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Rejects “Unanswered Questions” Indefiniteness Standard

By Emily Parker and David Barker Last week, a split Federal Circuit panel reversed a decision invalidating certain computer-aided-design patent claims because the district court used an incorrect indefiniteness standard. Nature Simulation Systems (“NSS”) sued Autodesk, Inc. for infringing two patents directed to computerized methods for building three-dimensional objects. Autodesk argued that certain claims in NSS’s patents were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. During a claim construction hearing, the district court held the claims were indefinite – and therefore invalid – because there were various “unanswered questions” raised by the claims’ terms. The district court held that such “unanswered   Read More »

Posted in Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article: