Validity
March 26, 2021
2021 FC 85: The Federal Court upheld the validity of all claims, but found that PetroChina was not infringing Maoz Betser-Zilevitch's patent for an SAGD.
March 3, 2021
Fed Cir, 2019-1927: The CAFC overturned a finding of non-obviousness by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board on a patent owned by Melanoscan, LLC.
November 16, 2020
2020 FC 997: In a summary judgement for patent impeachment, Canada's Federal Court found a patent for heating hydraulic booms to be invalid for obviousness.
March 9, 2020
2020 FCA 30; 2020 FCA 31 – Janssen and Celltrion will return to court in June after the FCA overturned a lower court decision regarding a Remicade patent.
November 14, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2019-1803 – CAFC sides with Airbus, finding that prior art references may be analogous even if they are outside the "field of endeavour."
October 11, 2019
CAFC 2018-1763 – In fiercely dissented decision, a top US court has invalidated an automotive patent, further extending the reach of the controversial §101.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
September 13, 2019
2019 FC 1065 – Canada's Federal Court ruled that two fiber optics patents were obvious in light of an admission made in the background sections.
July 8, 2019
The CAFC reminds lower courts that software patents are valid where they claim a particular improvement in how the outcome is achieved.
July 2, 2019
CAFC confirms that an invention is only obvious and ineligible for a patent where a skilled person would have had a “reasonable expectation of success.”