Monday April 4, 2016
IGT v. Aristocrat Technologies, No. 15-2083 – Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit may address the question of whether Congress intended to eliminate assignor estoppel as a potential defense in IPRs. The named inventor of the patents-in-suit assigned the patents to IGT, but is now an Aristocrat employee. IGT then sued Aristocrat for patent infringement. IGT argues that assignee estoppel precludes Aristocrat from challenging patent validity in an IPR, because nothing in the IPR statute demonstrates an intent to abrogate the common-law assignor estoppel principle. Aristocrat, however, argues that the broad language of the IPR statute permits any person who is “not the owner of a patent” to file an IPR petition.
Amgen v. Apotex, No. 16-1308 – Courtroom 402
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will address the 180-day notice provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). Amgen, supported by amici Janssen Biotech and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, argues that the BPCIA mandates notice within 180 days of the first commercial marketing of the biological product. Apotex, supported by amici Mylan, Celltrion Healthcare, and the Biosimilars Council, argues that notice is not mandatory, and requiring notice would create a 180-day period of de facto exclusivity.
Tuesday April 5, 2016
Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, No. 15-1570 – Courtroom 203
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the claimed methods of producing multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent claims a method of thawing previously frozen hepatocytes, fractionating the cells to remove non-viable cells, and then cryopreserving the recovered viable hepatocytes. Rapid Litigation Management argues that the claims are patentable under § 101 because they recite a method for subjecting non-natural substances to conditions that do not occur in nature to obtain a product that is not found in nature and with properties not found in nature.
Friday April 8, 2016
Apple v. Ameranth, No. 15-1703 – Courtroom 402
This case arises from a PTAB decision finding certain dependent claims patent eligible under § 101, including some claims directed to manual modification of a computerized menu via handwriting capture and voice capture, and others directed to linking a computerized menu to a customer.