Monthly Archives: April 2014

In re Anders Wallen

Docket No. 2013-1622 WALLACH, SCHALL, HUGHES April 23, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision vacated-in-part as it “‘cannot simply reach conclusions based on its own understanding or experiments-or on its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense” … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Novel Laboratories, Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1438 DYK (C/D), PROST, MOORE (D) April 22, 2014 Brief Summary: DC claim construction reversed and infringement finding remanded. Preamble term “a patient” considered limitation. Braintree’s patent found not anticipated, obvious or indefinite. Judge Dyk and Judge Moore … Continue reading

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

Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Natco Pharma Limited et al.

Docket No. 2013-1418 RADER (D), PROST, CHEN April 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Earlier filed (earlier expiring) / later issued patent may serve as obviousness-type double patenting reference for later filed (later expiring) / earlier issued patent (URAA patents). Dissent argued … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA et al.

Docket No. 2012-1489 NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH April 21, 2014 Brief Summary: Jury verdict findings that Sanofi’s patent covering a combination of drugs for treatment of hypertension (Tarka®) is not invalid for obviousness (to try), Glenmark was not entitled to a … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2013-1298 MOORE, SCHALL, REYNA April 18, 2014 Brief Summary: The FC panel affirmed the DC grant of SJ of no antitrust violations to 3D. Summary: Desotech appealed grant of SJ of no antitrust violations to 3D (patent claims … Continue reading

Posted in Antitrust | Leave a comment

University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1575 LOURIE, DYK (D), O’MALLEY April 10, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Construction of means-plus-function limitation in independent claim affirmed. Preamble term of dependent claim found not part of the apparatus but “drawn to an intended use.” Willful infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Infringement, Means-plus-function, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Trebro Manufacturing, Inc. v. Firefly Equipment, LLC and Steven R. Aposhian

Docket No. 2013-1437 RADER April 9, 2014 Brief Summary: Decision denying preliminary injunction related to sod harverster patent vacated because DC abused its discretion. The opinion also explained “the fact that Trebro does not presently practice the patent does not … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Injunction | Leave a comment