Monthly Archives: July 2013

Novozymes A/S et al. v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS et al.

Docket No. 2012-1433 RADER(d), SCHALL, BRYSON July 22, 2013 Brief summary: Novozymes’ general description of mutations (any mutation at residue 239) was insufficient to show possession of invention claimed in continuation (filed “[u]pon learning” of DuPont’s mutant). Summary: Novozymes appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

In re Doron Adler, et al.

Docket No. 2012-1610 PROST, REYNA, WALLACH July 18, 2013 Brief summary: Examiner’s obviousness rejections were affirmed by the Board, and the Board decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The applicant’s argument that the Board raised a new rejection was … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Fresenius USA, Inc. et al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2012-1334, -1335 NEWMAN(D), DYK, PROST July 2, 2013 Brief Summary: Cancellation of claims by the PTO must be given effect in a pending infringement litigation. Summary: Fresenius brought an invalidity DJ action against Baxter and Baxter counterclaimed for … Continue reading

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Reexamination, Reissue | Leave a comment

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Teresa Stanek Rea and Synthes (U.S.A.)

Docket No. 2012-1343 DYK, BRYSON, WALLACH July 9, 2013 Brief Summary: BPAI decision of non-obviousness reversed because claims encompassed “no ‘more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions’” (KSR, US 2007). Summary: Smith & … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Wyeth, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.

Docket No. 2012-1223, -1224 MOORE, BRYSON, WALLACH June 26, 2013 Brief summary: District court grant of summary judgment for nonenablement affirmed because “having to synthesize and screen each of at least tens of thousands of candidate compounds constitutes undue experimentation”. … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1042 NEWMAN(C/D), PROST, O’MALLEY(C/D) June 25, 2013 Brief summary: Inducement to infringe does not turn on “mere negligence” and “evidence of an accused inducer’s good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement”. Summary: Cisco … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Ultramercial, Inc. et al. v. Hulu, LLC et al.

Docket No. 2010-1544 RADER, LOURIE(C), O’MALLEY June 21, 2013 Brief summary: Issued patents are presumed to encompass patentable subject matter; a challenger must show the contrary by clear and convincing evidence. And “the relevant [patentability] inquiry is whether a claim, … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment