The Fight for CRISPR Patents
For over a decade, there has been a battle for the coveted patents relating to the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technique. Two main groups, the University of California and the Broad Institute, are litigating the rights to the patents specifically covering the editing of eukaryotic cells
<em> Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court ruling, determining that claim 11 of the ‘954 patent and claim 3 of the ‘694 patent were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and remanded for further proceedings.
<em> Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell </em>
The Federal Circuit Court affirmed an Eastern District Court of Virginia’s decision to mandate a correction of inventorship of U.S. Patent 9,376,049 (the “’049 patent”) which added Gary Mackay and Dan Hewson as named inventors.
<em> Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit rejected Amazon’s cross-appeal and affirmed the district court ruling, determining that the lower court did not abuse its discretion or make a clear error on Amazon’s inequitable conduct defense.
<em> AlexSam, Inc., v. MasterCard Int’l Inc. </em>
AlexSam filed a breach of contract claim against MasterCard. The District Court held that the claim was prohibited under the parties’ covenant not to sue. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded based on non-ambiguity in license agreements.
A Collision of Precedents: Assessing the <em> LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC </em> Patent Case
For the first time since 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sat en banc to review a patent case. LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC marks a pivotal battle over design patents and spotlights the debate surrounding existing Court precedents.
<em>Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on the validity of Teleflex’s patent but refused to address whether an in vivo performance of an in vivo method is required to show actual reduction to practice.
<em>Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit Court issued a precedential decision vacating the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s claim construction order and remanded the case to consider extrinsic evidence and its impact on claim construction.
<em>Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on Netflix’s asserted prior art reference, holding Netflix did not need to use the “magic words” field of endeavor to identify one in their asserted prior art reference.
<em>Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Baxalta’s patent for antibodies that treat Hemophilia A was invalid for lack of enablement and applied the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi to reach its determination.
<em>Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decision and canceled Ikorongo Technology LLC’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 251(a), which requires that a reissue patent contain no new matter.
The Unified Patent Court Committees Have Hit the Ground Running
The European Union has recently taken steps to integrate the Unified Patent Court (UPC) into their judicial system by getting the first few committee meetings underway, appointing judges, and adopting human resource standards for the Court. These are small steps which will lead to big advancements for patent proprietors in Europe, making it easier to enforce patents across borders in the European Union.