直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

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

June 14, 2016

Authored and Edited by 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:

  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.

Tags

provisional application, Sequenom Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., specification, Teva

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


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.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Reception

12th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala

May 21, 2026

Atlanta

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP