Monthly Archives: August 2013

Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Teresa Stanek Rea (USPTO)

Posted on August 30, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1520 RADER, O’MALLEY, REYNA August 12, 2013 Brief summary: BPAI claim construction reversed because it was tied to a single example and not the plain and ordinary meaning. BPAI obviousness decision reversed due to lack of motivation to … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Taurus IP, LLC et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, et al.

Posted on August 29, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2008-1462, -1463, -1464, -1465 PROST, SCHALL, REYNA August 9, 2013 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to DaimlerChrysler for non-infringement, anticipation and exceptional case under 35 USC § 285 affirmed. Breach of warranty suit also considered but not … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

Posted on August 27, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1531 RADER, DYK, REYNA August 9, 2013 Brief summary: DC found to have improperly limited claims (e.g., “specification states that the examples ‘do not in any way limit the scope of the invention’”) and failed to properly address … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Injunction | Leave a comment

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1510 DYK, CLEVENGER, MOORE August 7, 2013 Brief summary: Expert witness testimony was excluded because testing procedures did not concur with expert report and were not disclosed until trial (six months after submission of expert report). Rembrandt also … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Infringement | Leave a comment

3M Innovative Properties Company et al. v. Tredegard Corporation et al.

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1241 O’MALLEY, PLAGER, REYNA August 6, 2013 Brief Summary: Claim construction issues turned on plain and ordinary meaning, prosecution history and definition provided by claim. And, during prosecution, the court is “guided by legal principles dictating that we … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Cheese Systems, Inc. et al. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 13, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2012-1463-, -1501 RADER, REYNA, DAVIS (DJ) August 6, 2013 Brief summary: DC claim construction, anticipation and obviousness findings were affirmed. Summary: Cheese Systems, Inc. (CSI) (which brought a DJ action) appealed DC grant of SJ to Tetra Pak … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Plantronics, Inc. v. Alphi, Inc. and Aliphcom, Inc.

Posted on August 9, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1355 RADER, O’MALLEY, WALLACH July 31, 2013 Brief summary: DC found to have improperly imported limitations into the claims and failed to consider objective indicia of obviousness. Summary: Plantronic appealed DC grant of SJ of noninfringement and invalidity … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Posted on August 6, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570 RADER, MOORE, BENSON July 26, 2013 Brief summary: The term “molecular weight” was found indefinite; claims found enabled and not obvious because of preference expressed by and teaching away within prior art and supportive … Continue reading →

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