Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article explaining how “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
- yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”
Alex Baldwin authored an article for Life Sciences IP Review explaining how, due to Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., “Abbot-owned St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent.”
Frank L. Berstein wrote an article for The National Law Review discussing how the Federal Circuit “issued a precedential opinion in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics, affirming — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.” Bernstein noted that the “interesting part of the Federal Circuit opinion is the extensive discussion, particularly in the concurring opinion, of the PTAB’s ability to raise unpatentability grounds sua sponte.”
Matthew Bultman published an article with Bloomberg Law assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.” Bultman noted that the “outcome of the fight could hinge on whether the PTAB issues its final decision on Seagen’s patent before any Daiichi appeal is finished.”