The Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had invalidated Teva's headache treatment patents under § 112, distinguishing the case from Amgen v. Sanofi by focusing on what the method-of-use claims actually cover.
In Fortress Iron v. Digger Specialties, the Federal Circuit held that when a co-inventor cannot be located and added under § 256(b), the patent is invalid.
In Merck Serono v. Hopewell, the Federal Circuit clarifies how “by another” applies when prior art and challenged patent share overlapping inventors under pre‑AIA §§ 102(a) and (e).
The Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal in PowerBlock v. iFit, finding a specific dumbbell mechanism patent-eligible under § 101 and rejecting abstract idea claims.
