Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in a patent case addressing the written description requirement and ownership of patents;
- another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate ex parte reexaminations based on estoppel; and
- an article assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent determination that “claims of a patent relating to methods for treating acne are invalid because they would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.”
Thomas F. Cotter published a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision in BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.” Cotter noted that, “[l]ong story short, the majority [found] that the species, but not the genus, claims of four of the patents in suit satisf[ied] the written description requirement, and that BASF is not a co-owner of any of the patents.”
Angeline L. Premraj wrote a blog post for Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP Blog explaining how, “[i]n Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve Alarm.com’s challenge to the Director’s decision to vacate three ex parte reexaminations in light of IPR estoppel.”
Samantha Handler filed an article for Bloomberg Law assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent determination that “Almirall LLC’s claims of a patent relating to methods for treating acne are invalid because they would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.”