Monthly Archives: August 2012

In re Applied Materials

Docket No. 2011-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, LINN August 29, 2012 Brief summary: Claims may be obvious where prior art discloses variables and recognizes the same are relevant to the desired properties of the claimed subject matter (“result-effective … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2011-1561 -1562 LOURIE, DYK, WALLACH August 24, 2012 Brief Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analysis relates to “what [was] previously claimed…not what [was] previously disclosed” although disclosure may prohibit subsequently patenting a previously disclosed use. And it may be … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Greeliant Systems et al. v. Xicor, LLC

Docket No. 2011-1514 LINN, PLAGER, DYK August 22, 2012 Brief summary: Under the rule of recapture, a patentee is “bound by the arguments that it made before the examiner” regardless of the ultimate reasons for allowance. Summary: Xicor appealed USDC … Continue reading

Posted in Reissue | Leave a comment

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Sandoz, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2012-1062, -1103, -1104 RADER (D), DYK, MOORE August 3, 2012 Brief summary: Post-marketing testing required by the FDA may be protected under 271(e)(1). Summary: Amphastar appealed DC denial of its Emergency Motion to Dissolve or Stay the preliminary … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al.

Docket No. 2011-1455 PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY August 8, 2012 Brief Summary: The Federal Circuit panel concluded that, although the prior art expressly disclosed a drug concentration overlapping of certain claims (0.0001-0.01% w/v), others were not disclosed (0.1% w/v) and the … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment