Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Clarifies Motivation to Combine to Achieve the Claimed Invention and Holds IPR Petitioner Must Be Given Opportunity to Reply Where Patent Owner First Proposes Claim Construction In a Response
In a pair of decisions, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto unanimously vacated final written decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board") relating to Medtronic Inc.'s patents, remanding in favor of patent challenger Axonics, Inc.
On July 10, 2023, in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Nos. 2022-1451 and 2022-1452, in a decision written by Judge Taranto, the panel vacated the Board's decisions that Axonics failed to prove the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,314 ('314 patent) and 8,036,756 ('756 patent) are unpatentable as obvious. Slip op. at 2.
The '314 patent is a grandchild of the '756 patent. Id. at 2. According to the '314 patent specification, the "invention relates generally to a method and apparatus that allows for stimulation of body tissue, particularly sacral nerves." Id. at 2. While the specification calls out electrical stimulation of the sacral nerves, it also "includes discussion of electrostimulation devices for other parts of the body." Id. at 2–3. Similarly, while "sacral nerve stimulation" is one "preferred embodiment," the specification also describes the "present invention" in terms that are not confined to the sacral nerves. Id. at 3. And, notably, "[n]o claim of the two patents either mentions or is limited to sacral nerves." Id. at 5.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.