Teva v astrazeneca invalidating a patent with secret prior art

by  |  09-Apr-2020 08:58

As always, we love to hear from readers, so if you think we left something off the list or disagree with anything we included, please let us know.

Understand the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the product solution for which your IP is a part and build your IP strategy accordingly.

Here is Think IP Strategy’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet.

On June 10, 2011, the court issued its claim construction opinion construing terms in both the ′130 patent and the ′026 patent.

However, because there was no case or controversy at the time of the judgment over the remaining claims of the ′130 patent (“unasserted claims”), the district court erred in holding the unasserted claims of the ′130 patent invalid. Background Fox is the assignee of the ′130 patent, entitled Low Defect Axially Grown Single Crystal Silicon Carbide, which claims a low defect silicon carbide (“Si C”) crystal and relates to a method and apparatus of said crystal. Cree filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity on April 11, 2011. We address each in turn.“This court reviews the district court's grant or denial of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit.” Lexion Med., LLC v. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent from the judgment the majority reaches.

It is never enough, therefore, to develop IP without having in mind how it will be sold to individual customers.

Community Discussion