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 Examines the Analogous Art Test
On May 9, 2023, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Reyna, Mayer and Cunningham issued a precedential opinion, authored by Judge Cunningham, in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981. Patent owner Sanofi appealed from an inter partes review (IPR) Board's decision finding Sanofi's U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the "614 Patent") invalid as obvious, arguing that Mylan failed to assert that a prior art reference is analogous to the challenged patent and instead asserted that the reference is analogous to another prior art reference. Slip Op. at 2. The Federal Circuit agreed finding that the analogousness test was not based on the challenged patent and, therefore, Mylan did not meet its burden of establishing obviousness. Id. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's decision.
Sanofi's 614 Patent relates to a drug delivery device that can be configured to allow setting of different dose sizes by using a "spring washer" that can exert a force on the cartridge and secure the cartridge against movement. Id. at 2-3. All claims of the 614 Patent require a "spring washer" secured by "at least two fixing elements." Id. at 3.
Mylan petitioned for IPR of all claims of Sanofi's 614 Patent based on a combination of three prior art references: Burren, Venezia and de Gennes. Id. Mylan asserted that the combination of Burren and Venezia taught the use of spring washers within drug-delivery devices and de Gennes disclosed "snap-fit engagement grips" to secure the spring washer. Id. at 3-4. Mylan argued that although de Gennes is concerned with a clutch bearing in automobiles, it nevertheless addressed a problem identified in Burren, namely "axially fixing two components relative towards each other." Id. at 4-5. Sanofi argued, among other things, that de Gennes is not analogous art to the 614 Patent because it relates to cars and not drug delivery devices or medical devices and is not reasonably pertinent to the 614 Patent's problem of "secur[ing] a cartridge against movement within a housing" — a problem that is narrower than that of Burren. Id. at 4.
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.
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.
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?