Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about two recent rulings by the Federal Circuit that may “dent the number of Section 101 motions to dismiss that courts fully or partially grant each year”;
- another article about a Federal Circuit case that would “clear the way for a proposed generic” opioid drug; and
- a blog post about a decision in which the Federal Circuit held “the definition of a claim term in a patent incorporated by reference into the patents at issue does not dictate the definition of claims in the asserted patents.”
Angela Morris wrote an article for IAM about two recent rulings by the Federal Circuit that may “dent the number of Section 101 motions to dismiss that courts fully or partially grant each year.” Morris maintained that “[a]ccused infringers have seen great success utilizing Section 101 patent eligibility arguments to quickly dispose of lawsuits very early in litigation when they file Rule 12(b)(6) motions.” Morris reported, however, that two recent decisions, in which “the Federal Circuit determined that trial courts improperly dismissed patent infringement suits too early in litigation,” may signal increased difficulty for accused infringers to successfully file 12(b)(6) motions.
Britain Eakin authored an article for Law360 about a Federal Circuit case that would “clear the way for a proposed generic” opioid drug. Eakin reported that “[a]n attorney for Alvogen met some stiff resistance on Tuesday from a Federal Circuit panel,” after the attorney made claims that “the backing layers are identical.” Eakin maintained that “Alvogen argued on appeal that [a] declaration . . . should be dismissed as hearsay.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about a Federal Circuit decision that “the definition of a claim term in a patent incorporated by reference into the patents at issue does not dictate the definition of claims in the asserted patents.” McDermott reported how the Federal Circuit found “’[t]he use of a restrictive term in an earlier application does not reinstate that term in a later patent that purposely deletes the term, even if the earlier patent is incorporated by reference.’”