● 06.25.17
●● In Sandoz v Amgen, the Federal Circuit is Again Found to Have Delivered Patent Injustice
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 12:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Supreme Courts of the United States (SCOTUS) makes the Federal Circuit (CAFC) look like the very opposite (or antithesis) of justice
Summary: SCOTUS continues to disagree with CAFC on everything that it decides to reconsider, even the very latest decision (formally delivered earlier this month)
THE Supreme Courts of the United States (SCOTUS) is looking into all sorts of patent cases these days. Thankfully, as we have been noting for years, none of these cases involves software patents and therefore there is no risk that Alice will be overridden by a newer decision (similar to overturning it).
“It has very little relevance to the sorts of patents we scrutinise, but it once again shows SCOTUS skewering CAFC. What does that tell us about CAFC?”Recently, following two decisions in which SCOTUS had overturned decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), it also ruled in Sandoz v Amgen. We have not written about it yet. It has very little relevance to the sorts of patents we scrutinise, but it once again shows SCOTUS skewering CAFC. What does that tell us about CAFC?
The decision was covered here by Managing IP, which said: “The Supreme Court has ruled on the process for approving biosimilars under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) for the first time, mostly siding with Sandoz in its dispute with Sandoz.”
It was covered also in this article from Managing IP. To quote Natalie Rahhal: “The US Supreme Court in Sandoz v Amgen remanded the question of whether an injunction is available to Amgen under state unfair competition laws.”
“As expected, the potty mouth of the patent maximalists’ world (or alternate universe) quotes only one side of the argument.”So CAFC is truly, really, very bad. SCOTUS finds it wrong on patents all the time. As expected, the potty mouth of the patent maximalists’ world (or alternate universe) quotes only one side of the argument.
Yes, Watchtroll is at it again. We might revisit this soon, especially if time permits or if something unusual turns up.
Suffice to say, the above is very damaging to CAFC’s reputation. How can anyone take it seriously when SCOTUS disagrees with it virtually all the time?
Here is one patent maximalist stating that “Inventors’ Group Petitions the CAFC, Arguing the RecogniCorp 101/Alice Decision Endangers Many Patents: https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/0934000/934659/document%20(47).pdf …”
“Suffice to say, the above is very damaging to CAFC’s reputation.”Well, so be it… the one good thing about CAFC is, it’s no longer friendly towards software patents (unlike district courts).
Here is another patent maximalist claiming that “Federal Circuit Cases Clarify What Makes A Valid Software Patent” (loaded statement). As if such exceptions really exist; some recent rulings from CAFC clearly ruled out ALL software patents. This is the one thing we care about dearly because our top priority is to keep software patents away. No appeal to SCOTUS is going to change this any time soon. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.