Federal Circuit Holds that Importing Data is Not Patent Infringement
November 01, 2003
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
IP News
November 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Federal Circuit Decides <i>Festo</i> on Remand from Supreme Court
November 01, 2003
On September 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit decided <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,</i> 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which was on remand from the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit summarized the current law on prosecution history estoppel and shed some light on the applicability of the Supreme Court's criteria for rebutting the presumption of total surrender that results when a narrowing amendment is made for reasons substantially related to patentability. The Federal Circuit's decision appears to be directed toward a very limited exception to the total surrender presumption, and the minority opinions illustrate that there is tension within the Federal Circuit regarding the approach to barring equivalents.
New Test Determines Primarily Geographically Misdescriptive Marks
November 01, 2003
In a decision interpreting Section 2(e)(3) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3)), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted a new three-part test to be used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in determining whether a trademark is "primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive" ("misdescriptive"). <i>In re California Innovations, Inc.,</i> 329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit held that the amendments to the Lanham Act resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) changed the rules under which the PTO may deny registration to misdescriptive marks.
The Creditor in Possession
November 01, 2003
A hallmark of United States bankruptcy law has been the principle that a debtor should be provided with an opportunity to use the bankruptcy to get a "fresh start." That principle, initially applicable to individuals, was carried forward as an underlying premise of business reorganizations and coupled with the belief that reorganizations preserved going concern values. The value of reorganization as compared with liquidation in cases of major business failures was first realized in connection with the reorganization of railroads during the latter part of the 19th century that continued into the 20th century. In the context of the current economic environment, the underlying premise of railroad reorganizations of preserving going concern value may no longer be viable.
IP NEWS
October 02, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Supreme Court Expands Patent Jurisdiction
October 02, 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that will have a significant impact on the uniformity of patent law. As a result of <i>Holmes v. Vornado</i>, 535 U.S. 826, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 62 USPQ2d 1801 (2002), many cases involving patent counterclaims will be directed away from the Federal Circuit and into the regional circuit courts of appeals. Although this decision clarifies the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, it does so at the expense of consistency in patent law.
The New 'Material Effect' Test
October 02, 2003
In <i>Bayer AG v. Schein Pharm., Inc.</i>, 301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit articulated a new 'material effect' test for the best mode requirement. The court affirmed the validity of a patent covering the antibiotic drug ciprofloxacin on the grounds that it properly claimed priority to a parent application that satisfied the best mode requirement. With the priority date of the parent application, the patent was not invalidated under section 102(d) by an earlier filed foreign patent. The three-judge panel agreed that the parent application met the best mode requirement; however, the panel disagreed as to why the best mode requirement was satisfied. The majority reviewed the prior case law and found 'that the best mode of making and using the invention need be disclosed if it materially affects the properties of the claimed invention.' <i>Id.</i> at 1319-1320. Judge Radar concurred in the result, but strenuously objected to the creation of this additional criterion.
