Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2015 Volume 40, Number 2
Content
- 2015 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Civil Case on Redskins Heats Up: Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse, et al.
- Contents
- Copyright Interest Group
- Entertainment and Sports Law Interest Group
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2014-2015
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2014-2015
- International Ip Developments
- Legislation Update
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Licensing Interest Group
- Litigation Interest Group
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Newsflash
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Patent Interest Group
- Patently "Wrong:" Scotus rules that the Federal Circuit has Misused the "De Novo" Standard when Reviewing Claim Construction Determinations
- Runaway jurisprudence: Has the "But For" Test for Proving Inequitable Conduct in Patent Cases Gone Awry, Gone Rogue, or Gone Quiet?
- The Licensing Corner
- The Moral of B&B Hardware: Companies Need to Be Strategic in Trademark Actions Before the Ttab
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Trademark Interest Group
- Federal Circuit Review
Federal Circuit Review
GLENN E. VON TERSCH Principal, SVPC
Initially, consider that in the six months after Alice,1 the Federal Circuit addressed Alice considerations in at least seven decisions. In contrast, during the first quarter of 2015, no precedential decisions related to Alice came down from the Federal Circuit.2 The Court found other ways to keep busy though.
INSITE VISIONâFRAMING THE PROBLEM FOR OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
Pfizer and Insite Vision hold patents related to topical administration of azithromycin for eye infections, and Insite Vision markets a corresponding commercial productâAzasite®.3 Sandoz filed an AN-DA[Abbreviated New Drug Application] for a generic version of Azasite®, including a certification that the product does not infringe valid patents, thereby challenging the unexpired Insite Vision patents.4 Sandoz ultimately challenged obviousness of the patents on appeal.5