The Federal Circuit IP Blog Turns 1 — A Review of the Most Popular Posts From the Past Year

Author: Elizabeth D. Ferrill

On the anniversary of our first year, we thought we’d take a look back at the most popular posts from the past year. In just over 100 posts, these five rose to the top:

shutterstock_109070984

  1. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom Among the Most Important Federal Circuit Decisions From 2015 – This post from January 2016 was our most popular post, with more than 800 reads, covering a case that seems likely to have far-ranging implications for patents on diagnostic methods. Sequenom has filed for certiorari at the Supreme Court, so you will likely hear more from us on this topic in the future.
  2. Why Did I Say That? Knowledge of Person of Ordinary Skill Gleaned From Applicant’s Specification – In October 2015, this post seems to strike a chord with readers, perhaps for its timely discussion of an appeal from the PTAB, or perhaps for its amusing, yet educational title.
  3. “Sloppy” Attorney Arguments Not Litigation Misconduct, but Attorney’s Fees Still Possible – The issue of attorneys’ fees has been hot. This July 2015 post covered the continuing saga of when fees are awarded and when they are not.
  4. Teva’s “Molecular Weight” Patent Claims Found Indefinite – In another popular summer 2015 post, readers learned about indefiniteness in the pharmaceutical arts, when the Federal Circuit applied the “reasonable certainty” standard from Nautilus.
  5. Getting Priorities Straight: Patents Have No Presumptive Entitlement to Priority Date of Provisional Applications – In September 2015, many readers continued to be interested in Federal Circuit reviews of PTAB decisions, including this one on the subject patent’s true priority date.

And as we look forward to our next year, we would like to know, dear readers, what you’d like to see from us in the year to come. Please help us out by taking our short poll.

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: