Category Archives: Inventorship

DC decision requiring correction of inventorship on design and utility patents affirmed

Posted on June 27, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Blue Gentian, LLC et al. v. TriStar Products, Inc. Docket Nos. 2021-2316, -2317 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2316.OPINION.6-9-2023_2139976.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STARK June 9, 2023   Brief Summary:   DC decision to correct inventorship of disputed utility and design patents affirmed.   Summary:  Blue Gentian … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Design Patents, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC inventorship decision reversed as contribution “not significant when measured against the scope of the full invention”

Posted on May 5, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hip, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation Docket No. 2022-1696 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1696.OPINION.5-2-2023_2120058.pdf) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, TARANTO May 2, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC decision finding party should have been name a joint inventor reversed as contribution “not significant when measured against the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), Inventorship, IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Artificial intelligence cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act, Fed. Cir. holds

Posted on August 11, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Stephen Thaler v. Vidal/USPTO Docket No. 2021-2347 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2347.OPINION.8-5-2022_1988142.pdf) MOORE, TARANTO, STARK August 5, 2022 Brief Summary:   FC panel affirms ED VA and USPTO findings that only human beings and not computers (i.e., artificial intelligence) can be inventors under the … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC reversed on WD of genus claims and patent co-ownership, affirmed on no willfulness and remanded for damages calculation

Posted on March 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BASF Plant Science, L.P., Cargill, Inc. v. Commonwealth Scientific, et al. (“CSIRO”) Docket No. 2020-1415-16, 2020-1919-20 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1415.OPINION.3-15-2022_1921729.pdf) NEWMNA (D), TARANTO, CHEN March 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Following a dispute regarding a collaboration agreement, FC panel affirmed DC fining on … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Infringement, Inventorship, Licensing, Royalties, Venue, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

DC finding that Horizon’s OB patents are obvious and/or not infringed affirmed

Posted on November 17, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Docket No. 2021-1480 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1480.OPINION.11-16-2021_1865455.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC refusal to change inventorship, finding of obviousness and no infringement of Horizon’s patents affirmed. Summary:  Horizon appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment

ITC findings that Bio-Rad infringed and does not co-own 10X patents affirmed

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 10X Genomics Inc. Docket No. 2020-1785 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1785.OPINION.4-29-2021_1770917.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC infringement and no co-ownership findings affirmed. Summary:  Bio-Rad appealed International Trade Commission (ITC) decision finding infringement and … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC claim construction affirmed; refusal to correct inventorship vacated/remanded (“AIA did not narrow the meaning of ‘error’”)

Posted on September 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2015, -2387 PROST, REYNA, STOLL August 28, 2020 Brief Summary: DC claim construction affirmed; refusal to allow Egenera to correct inventorship vacated/remanded (“AIA did not narrow the meaning of ‘error’”). Summary: Egenera … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Claim Construction, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC decision adding Dana Farber/GI (Pfizer) inventors to Ono/BMS anti-PD1 patents affirmed

Posted on July 21, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharm. Co., et al. (Bristol-Myers Squibb) Docket No. 2019-2050 NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL July 14, 2020 Brief Summary: DC order to add Dana Farber and GI/Pfizer inventors to the Ono/BMS relating to the use of … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Dana-Farber and Genetic Institute researchers named co-inventors on the “Honjo patents” encompassing methods for treating cancer using anti-PD1 antibodies including BMS’s Opdivo® (nivolumab)

Posted on May 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. Civil Action No. 15-13443-PBS U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts May 17, 2019 Brief summary: DC determines Dana-Farber and Genetics Institute researchers to be co-inventors on the Honjo patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment