Monthly Archives: March 2014

Shire Development, LLC et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1409 RADER, PROST, HUGHES March 28, 2014 Brief Summary: DC construction of the terms “inner lipophilic matrix” and “outer hydrophilic matrix” reversed as inconsistent with “[t]he prosecution history, the structure of the claim itself, the ordinary meaning of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP

Posted on March 27, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1353 RADER, REYNA, WALLACH March 26, 2014 Brief summary: TTAB decision refusing to register “STONE LION CAPITAL” due to a likelihood of confusion with Lion Capital LLP’s previously registered marks “LION CAPITAL” and “LION” affirmed. Summary: Stone Lion … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.

Posted on March 26, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1239 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH March 25, 2014 Brief Summary: Claim and issue preclusion found inapplicable but the Kessler Doctrine applies because “all of the claims were or could have been asserted against Elekta” and the devices are “essentially … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Preclusion, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Posted on March 20, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1057, -1296 RADER, DYK, TARANTO March 14, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of non-infringment to Google vacated and remanded as it was based on erroneous claim construction. Summary: Vederi appealed USDC CD CA grant of SJ … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement | Leave a comment

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Posted on March 19, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1340, -1341 NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON March 18, 2014 Brief Summary: DC holding of no infringement affirmed; findings of no enablement and written description reversed. Its denial of Barr’s request for JMOL was also affirmed. Summary: Alcon appealed final … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Written description | Leave a comment

E2 Interactive, Inc. and Interactive Communications, Inc. (“InComm”) v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.

Posted on March 17, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1151 DYK, MOORE, WALLACH March 12, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC judgment of infringement finding claims did not require “terminal identifier” to make authorization determination reversed where patentee “unambiguously argued that” it is required during prosecution. Summary: Blackhawk … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Therasense, Inc. et al. (Abbott) v. Becton, Dickinson and Company and Nova Biomedical Corporation, and Bayer Healthcare LLC

Posted on March 14, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1504 RADER, NEWMAN, DYK (dissent-in-part) March 12, 2014 Brief Summary: Becton / Nova’s request for additional fees 35 U.S.C. § 285 denied because the “pre-existing inequitable conduct ruling was ‘not upheld on appeal’ as required by the…fee order” … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc.

Posted on March 13, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1214 LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY March 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of DJ action for lack of “justiciable Article III case or controversy” reversed and remanded because “Novozymes’s behavior” made “Danisco, quite reasonably,…more than a ‘nervous…possible infringer’, even … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes | Leave a comment

Promega Corporation v. Applied Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies Corporation, and California Institute of Technology

Posted on March 12, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1454 PROST, MAYER, CHEN March 10, 2014 Non-precedential (Rule 36 judgment) Brief Summary: DC determination of invalidity affirmed (anticipated as earlier patent not filed “by another”; no 103(c) safe harbor as no evidence of “team research” presented). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Assignment / Ownership, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. (“Nooren”) and Stopaq B.V. v. Sopaq Amcorr Inc.

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1200 RADER, TARANTO, CHEN February 21, 2014 Brief Summary: DC construction that “‘a filler’ can contrain only ‘one material’” vacated as neither the specification nor the prosecution history excluded mixtures (“too many questions of apparent relevance to identifying … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment