Tag Archives: patents

Numerical Ranges: More Than Just Endpoints in Patent Process

On February 11 and 12, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office held a series of webinars covering the interpretation of ranges during the prosecution of patent applications. The following is a brief report and summary of the covered material.

Numerical ranges provide more than just two particular endpoints for a set of data within patent applications. The interpretation of a claimed numerical range when compared with disclosed numerical ranges in the prior art, assuming the claimed invention recites the other limitations of the prior art, can form the basis for an anticipation rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or an alternative grounds rejection under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

What Competitors Don’t Know Can Hurt You: SCOTUS Rules Secret Sales Can Trigger On-Sale Bar Under AIA

The Supreme Court of the United States recently affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, 855 F.3d 1356 (2017), which invalidated a patent-in-suit under the post-AIA on-sale bar. The question presented, answered by the Court in the affirmative, was “[w]hether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act [AIA], an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.”

Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, concluded that the “on sale” provision in §102(a)(1) of the AIA was a re-enactment of the “on sale” bar provision in the pre-AIA patent statute that did not alter its meaning or interpretation, despite the inclusion of the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” in post-AIA §102(a)(1). Thus, based on the Federal Circuit’s “settled precedent,” and consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, 525 U.S. 55 (1998), the Court held that “a commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep the invention confidential may place the invention ‘on sale’ under [the AIA].” Details of the ruling and some takeaways for companies entering into licenses and supply agreements are discussed below.

Read the full Duane Morris Alert.

COMMINGLED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY–LIKE PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY?

By Jennifer A. Kearns, John M. Neclerio and Vicki G. Norton

Who doesn’t like the favorite sandwich of childhood – peanut butter and jelly? The two substances blend and meld together, creating a delectable gooey, messy, sticky and sweet treat.

In the life sciences, commingled intellectual property can also create “gooey,” messy and sticky problems for companies. Unfortunately, there’s nothing sweet about commingled IP and the complications that can arise from it, and you can be sure that an experience arising from claims of commingled IP will leave a sour taste in your mouth.  Here we discuss proactive or preventative steps that companies can take to reduce the risk of commingling IP.

Continue reading COMMINGLED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY–LIKE PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY?