Monthly Archives: May 2012

In re Baxter International, Inc.

Posted on May 25, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1073 NEWMAN(D), LOURIE, MOORE May 17, 2012 Brief summary: The panel affirmed the BPAI decision of invalidity for obviousness even though the district court had concluded the opposite. The panel explained that this was acceptable as the burden … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1267, -1298 RADER, WALLACH (Circuit Judge), FOGEL (District Judge) May 7, 2012 Brief summary: The corresponding structures of means-plus-function limitations are ascertained from the specification. Summary: ISE appealed from final judgment of USDC ND IL that its ‘707 … Continue reading →

Posted in Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. (the “Defendants”)

Posted on May 9, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1126, -1127 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA May 7, 2012 Brief summary: Otsuka’s patent encompassing the schizophrenia drug Abilify® found not obvious because the skilled artisan would not have selected proposed lead compounds as a starting point in development. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Shaker A. Mousa

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1294 PROST, SCHALL, and REYNA April 19, 2012 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Appellant’s claims relating to “super-sulfated, oxidized heparin fractions” were determined to be inherently anticipated by an earlier patent. After rejection, the burden to show the fractions were … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102) | Leave a comment