The Supreme Court holds that a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense against a charge of patent infringement
Tag Archives: defenses to infringement
Zydus Not Infringing Lansoprazole ODT Particle Size Claim
Contact the author: Andrew Berks Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2013-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2/20/2014) This Hatch-Waxman case pertains to particle size claims for the brand name drug Prevacid® SoluTab™. The product is an orally dissolving tablet (ODT) containing lansoprzaole. Only claim 1 of US6328994 is in dispute, which reads, in relevant …
Continue reading “Zydus Not Infringing Lansoprazole ODT Particle Size Claim”
Ariad v. Lilly: Federal Circuit Upholds Separate Written Description and Enablement
In an en banc decision, the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit affirmed, in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., that there are separate written description and enablement requirements in 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, and that the requirement applies to original claims as well as amended claims. (598 F.3d 1336 (No. 2008-1248) …
Continue reading “Ariad v. Lilly: Federal Circuit Upholds Separate Written Description and Enablement”
Defective Chain of Priority Results in Holding of Anticipation
Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Alpine Electronics of America, No. 2009-1544 (Fed. Cir. 6/18/2010). Encylopedia Britannica (EB) owns the ‘018 and ‘437 patents, pertaining to multimedia database search system for retrieving textual and graphical information. EB sued defendants Alpine Electronics and several others alleging infringement of these two patents. The defendants argued that the patents were invalid …
Continue reading “Defective Chain of Priority Results in Holding of Anticipation”
Prosecution Laches as Defense to Infringement — Cancer Res. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
Prosecution laches is an equitable defense to a charge of patent infringement, that “may render a patent unenforceable when it has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution” that constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system.
Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.
In Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., No. 2009-1147 (Fed. Cir. 5/24/2010), Aspex sent Clariti several letters in 2003 alleging infringement of Aspex patents pertaining to eyewear. The last letter from Clariti was sent in June, 2003. Aspex then had no further contact with Clariti until August, 2006, when Aspex again renewed its allegations …
Continue reading “Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.”