Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

1. AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS v. UCB PHARMA GMBH [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (Lourie, Chen, Stoll)

Lourie, J. Affirming PTAB holding in IPR that pro-drug was not obvious. The petitioner had standing to pursue the appeal based on its ANDA even though it had only filed a Paragraph III certification with respect to the patent-at-issue. On the merits, the Court affirmed the PTAB that there was no motivation to modify the underlying compound or make the specific modifications that would have led to the claimed compound. 

2. WESTERNGECO L.L.C. v. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORP. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (Dyk, Wallach, Hughes)

Dyk, J. On remand from the Supreme Court to consider lost profits, the Court remanded to the district court in light of the intervening invalidation of 4 of the 6 claims which could support a damages award. Because the parties had stipulated to a final judgment resolving all issues except lost profits, the intervening invalidation of the claims was not reason to reopen the judgment with respect to a reasonable royalty. As to lost profits, the intervening invalidation might require a new trial unless the jury must have found the technology covered by a valid claim was essential for performing the accused surveys. The case was remanded to the district court to decide that issue.

3. REALTIME DATA, LLC v. IANCU [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (Dyk, Taranto, Stoll)

Stoll, J. Affirming PTAB decision in IPR that all claims directed to data compression were invalid as obvious. Where Board accepted principle argument that all of limitations were found in a single reference, it was not required to make any finding concerning motivation with respect to a second reference which was simply used to demonstrate how a person of ordinary skill would have understood the first reference. 

4. AC TECHNOLOGIES S.A. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (Moore, Schall, Stoll)

Stoll, J. Affirming PTAB in IPR where it found some claims invalid in its initial final written decision and the remaining claims invalid on rehearing after Petitioner asked the Board to rule on grounds raised in the petition, but not instituted and not addressed in the final written decision. 

For more information, including commentary and copies of briefs and decisions on current hot topics in IP law, visit  wilmerhale.com/en/solutions/intellectual-property-litigation. 

For patent cases in which petitions for certiorari have been granted, are pending, or have recently been denied, visit  wilmerhale.com/en/solutions/appellate-and-supreme-court-litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.