Monthly Archives: October 2011

Eli Lilly and Company vs. Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2010-1500 NEWMAN, FRIEDMAN, LOURIE July 29, 2011 Non-precedential Subject matter: enablement, utility, obviousness Brief summary: contrary results / expert witness testimony crucial in obviousness; utility statements “must be taken as in compliance…unless there is reason to doubt”; inducement … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2011-1045 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, REYNA October 20, 2011 Subject matter: interference Brief summary: A §146 action (interference) is a new civil proceeding subject to de novo determination; the burden of proof stays with the junior party in an appeal; … Continue reading

Posted in Interference | Leave a comment

Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2011-1048 NEWMAN(d), SCHALL, MOORE October 18, 2011 Subject matter: damages Apotex appealed USDC SDNY award of prejudgment interest to SA and that Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. were jointly and severably liable for damages related to Plavix® (clopidogrel). … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

In re Jie Xiao (Ser. No. 11/161,741)

Docket No. 2011-1195 LOURIE, BRYSON, DYK October 12, 2011 Non-precedential Subject matter: obviousness Brief summary: Printed matter (here, on a device, but also separate instructions) lacking an actual functional relationship to the claimed device cannot render claimed subject matter non-obvious. … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.

Docket No. 2011-1096 BRYSON(d), O’MALLEY, REYNA October 13, 2011 Subject matter: permanent injunction Bosch appealed, and the FC reversed, the USDC DE denial of a permanent injunction against Pylon. Bosch owns several patents related to “beam-type” windshield washer blades and … Continue reading

Posted in Injunction | Leave a comment